IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDXCATURE AT BIIASPUR(CHHATTISGARH).. IffitlT PETITXON N0. 2-377 /2QQ2 PETITIONER RESPONDEN ^^^^'.-^•s-:: /^•^•"^ •f y-";^.'9-' ^"' ^ Chandrashekhar Tiwari, S/o. Late Shri. M.P. Tiwari, Aged about 50 years, Inspector. Paachayat & Social Education Organlzer, Janpad Panehayat, Nawagarh(Janjgir), Dist. iTanjgir-Chaapa (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh» Through Secretary, Social Welfare Departmen'fe,' D.K.S. Bhawan* Raipur (e.G.) Rega.s-fcrar, State Adainistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (M.P.) s' WRIT PETITION ONDER ARTICIfi 227 READ WITH ARTICLE 226 OF THE COigSTXTCTTIOH OF XNDI& ^OR ISST^aCE _^I'E/W&I@ IH THE E&TURE OF CERTIOR?ytI, I&NDAMUS, PROHIBITION AHD FOR OTHER SaT.'S&SIE HRIT OR WRITS.. CRDER OR ORDERS. DIRECTION_OTt BIRECTIQNS. frlil ...•i' 3f tll' ^fe-y 'i ^ 3. Br» o£ Sfcafee s^stf<s®a»e, •acveoaaaEfc o.6 ehhas'A NaaWalafya* 8.K*S. XI-HC-22 d"ul.;SI«l«T61,.'iSI'iS'('l*!^,£;fctl*J3< *lt«lyHStif-K^^..i^^Sia^M/0 <ttl?!JI^I ^fltfe ^t^f ^tfelfr ^ifeci SB^SWBK-tfe <!frl;q^5^ 1E^^F "^'^^ '^RC^R ''^itiftwai^r »:HQrBLB 8HRI FAKHRUD^iN, J. &_ HON'BtB SHRI V.K.SHMWteTAVA. J. 21/10/2004 Shri Mai-iindra Shrivastava, ,<3 ShriU.N.S. Deo,Gtwt.Adw3c| The petitioner has filed this] Constitution pf India, challenging ^ tiunsei for the petitioner. ' Kte for the State. : [petition under Article 226/227 of the fie order dated 10/10/2002 passed by tiie State Administrati\'e Tribuna', ^hereby he was transferred TrQm Jaiipad Pai-ichayat,,Nawagarh (Janjgir) to-D^ Petitioner has filed the pei Tribunal aeainsfhis transfer. The 3 kntewada. ition before .the State Administrative tate Admintstratiye;Tribunal, Jabalpur, passed the order dated 10/1Q/20(^ holding thaf the petitioner's transfer .waa made on the hasis of'.serious;|comp}aints and dismissed the petition, Against this order, .during the inte^ning periqcit: transfer order has been cancelled. Therefore, this petition 'Jias'.become infri-ictuous. jubmits that the petitioner j'las already »®uuateu*- jpondents/authorityJJ^uf they ha'"e not lat a, direction 'm^y-'-Be- 'gi'veri fo tHe js same as early as pDssible. Counsel for 'fhe petitioner ^ made representation before the fei decided the same. t^e prays ^ tlj raspondents./authority to decideth) Having considered and withi:(ut expre^sing any opinion on the meiita of the case, in the opinion ofthis direction is given to the competentj the representation ^already submitf competent aufhorit}.' of the respo4 merits in accordance with law as months. . ' pourt ends ofjustice will be sei-yeci if a 1 authority orthe respondents- to.decide Led by the petitioner. Accordingly, the dents sha!} decide the same on its own arb^as possible prefcrably within fhree ^@^: iun fgs „.; Xl-BC-22 3t^W~*t R-U<(> aig^i ^<-fei8^J •iK'^'^^^K^1 ^^•-<!ieita*i,5®gisigs; t<f*w8gi*ttcn ^BF^ss:s •-'s-';1: ^-^&^s^/^ ^s a^i^aw:' ^a dispQsed of. Cbnsequently; M.j •«ti<At'*B-i*iNcSE^tst3'tf4'i!g< ^fS^RS^I ith the aforesaid obseilvations and directions, this.petition starids— C^-ified copy as per rul^s. '. P. No. 1064/20Q4-aIscr stands disposed sd//- ^Shrivastava Judge .:^N. y.