*1 @ 1 BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH AT BILASPUR [c.cq WRIT PETITION No. 3W£ /2006 $mGLE BENtg 5) The Petitioner, named above, respectfully submits as under:— WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONS’H’I‘U’HON OF 1ND1A. ’ PETITIONER S.N. Shukla, aged about 44 years, son of Late Shrl' Ravinandan Prasad Shukla, occupaiiun — Service — Draughtsman, In the Office of Executive Engineer, Water Management, Division No.1, Rajpur (C.G.), resident of Qtr No. 1-1—56, Irrigation Colony, Rudri, District Dhamtari (C.G.j VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, 1 through — the Secretary, os’ovw Department of Water Resources, q” “g9 whvkw’v/ f” g‘ Man \v £°$ V‘ ‘3‘ O,$‘§’P‘ , Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur lC.G.) W 2. The Under Secretaly, Department of Water Resources, Dau Kaiyan ’ Singh Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur (C.G.} 3. The Executive Engineer, Water {2/ Management, Division No.1, Raipur iChhattisgarh) XI-HC—78 EW,WW,W 81F uni-6nm 1H zooé mmwfawr) WWW WW§WW WWW WWW §5Wm 12-7—2006 Mr. Vinay Pandey, counsel ”or- ‘rhe pefifioner. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Govt Advoca‘l'e for fhe Sfafe/r‘esponden‘l‘s, on advance copy. Heard boi'h fhe counsel. By The ins‘ranf wrif pefifion, ?he pefifianer has chailenged fhe fransfer order- daTed 4-7-2006 passed by respondem No.2, whereby The pefifioner has been 1‘r'ansfer'r-ed from Raipur' 1'0‘ The Office of fhe Execm'ive Engineer, Sufiyapafh Projecf Division, Saiiaspur, Lohara, on his own expenses which indicafes that The peii‘iioner‘ has been ‘ir‘onsferred on his request whereas no such requesf was made by The pei iTioner‘ for his Transfer. Learned counsei for The peTiTioner submiTs ThaT The peTiTioner has aiready made represenTaTion To spondenT No.3, bu? There is no response, as such, in The circumsTances, IT e_;peTiTioner may be oliowed To make a represenTaTion To respondenT N .2, who in Turn be direcTed To decide The represenTaTion, To which Iearned ounsei appearing for The STaTe/respondenTs has no objecTion. Having heard learned coun ei for The par-Ties, having regard To The facTs and circumsTances of The case a wiThouT expressing any ooinion on meriT‘of The case, The requesT made by i rned counsei for The peTiTioner is jusT, fair and reasonabie. Therefore, Th peTiTioner is ailowed To make a deTaiied represenTaTion raising aii his grie ances annexing a copy of The wriT peTiTion To respondenT No.2 wiThin Ten days rom Today and respondenT No.2 is direcTed To decide The represenTaTion wiThin ne monTh from The daTe of iTs receipT afTer ‘/,~ x- XI—HC-78 W W , W , W Imam amiab- IH 200g WW(W) Waiéa’ia? WWW§WW WWW mwm _l~_ % 31%m considering fhe painfs raised by The pefi'rioner', in an objective manner, in accerdance wifh law. Since fhe im )ugned transfer has baen effecfed on wrong ground Le. on fhe requesi' of the pe‘fh‘ioner whereas, as per *he allegafions made in The wr-H pefmon fhe peiifioner' has made no request fhe impugned Transfer order in respecf of fhe .‘pefiTioner is stayed, fill The decision on the pefifioner's represen‘i‘m‘ion. Wifh The direc'rions aforesaid, ’rhe pefi'rion sfonds disposed of. Consequen‘i’iy, M.(W.)P.No.2618/200é and I.A.No.66/2006 also siand disposed of. Par‘ries are enTii‘ied for certified copy of This order. i Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge VW_ ww Soma 68