i t a^i^) IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTCSGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. rs) NO. 4 SS 6 / 2011 Petitioner : / Shyamlal Soni, Aged about 58 years, S/o Shri Chhotelat Soni Sub Inspector at City Kotwali, bhamtari, Distt. bhamtari-(C.G.) Versus Respondents .\v'./- L^ ^y:.. ^•^ .^^ ^y.- ^A.-"" y / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary (Home) &overnment of Chhottisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, bistt. Raipur-(C.&.) 2. Superintendent of Police, Dhamtari, bistt. Dhamtari-(C.G.) ^3. Station House Oficer, City Kotwali, bhamtari, bistt. bhamtori-CC.^.) A. bhal Singh Hirwani, Sub Inspector, At Police Station Sihawa, Distt. Dhamtari-(C.6.) WRIT PETITEON UNDER ARTCaE 226 OF THE CONSTCTUTCON OFIN&IA ;'&'^ •:JV.'.v.,^-;;,.,.';';,<; ^ HIGHCQURTOFCHHAITI8GARHATBIL.ASPUR PET1TIONER WRIT PETmON (S) No. 4358 of2011 Shyamlal Som.. VERSUS RE8PONDENT8 State ofChhattisgaili & Others. WRIT PE'nTION UNBER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA .SB:,Hoii'MeSjmSatis?i_K^Affliiliotri^J, Preseiit: Shri A.8.Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner. SI-iri Shashank Thakur, Panel L^wyer for tlie State/respondent No. 1 to 3. 1. z. O.RDER(01<AL) (Passed on 05th day ofAugust, 2011) Leamed counsel appearwg for the petitioner submite fhat under the tt'aiisfer policy of the police depailment dated 01.04.2006 (Aimexure P/3), it is provided ttiat the Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors, ifhave completed 54 years oftheir age, they should not be posted in Naxal afiected areas <md they should be posted in other area. 8hi*i Rajput lurther submits that the petitioner has completed 58 yeai-s ofage and as such, he may not be posted in a Naxal affected area. It is next contended that the represeiitation dated 16.07.2011 (Amiexure P/2) ofthe petitioner has also not been decided ti.il date. Sliii Thakur, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submits that if the representation of the petitioner, as aforestated has not been decided till date, the same shall be considered and decided as expeditiously as possible. ^ 4. .2 It appea.rs that the authorities have completely igaored the above stated policy while passmg the impygned transter order dated 11.06.2011 (Amiexure P/l). In ttie said circumstances^ fhe aythorities ai'e directed to exanime the case ofttie petitioner m the light ofthe above stated policy and pass appropriate order on his representatio.n dated 16,07.2011 (Aimexure P/2), within a period of two weeks. It is farther directed that till the representation dated 16.07.2011 (Amiexure P/2) is decided, fhe impugned order dated 11.06/2011 (Amiexure P/l) m respect offhe petitioner, shall not be given effect to. Wifh the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposedof . [ Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit