@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J. Writ Appeal No.381 of 2011 Appellant . Kishori Lal Sahu, s/o Late Lambhoo Petitioner Ram Sahu aged 52 years, Patwari ' PC No.19 Kohka Tahsil and district Durg (CG) ‘ VERSUS Respondents 1 State of Chhattisgarh through — The Secretary Revenue Department DKS Bhawan Raipur (CG) 2 Collector Durg (CG) Writ Appeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 Present: Shri S.K. Dadsena, counsel for the appellant. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General for the State/ respondents. JUDGMENT (23“ August, 2011) The following Judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2) Appellant] petitioner Kishori Lal Sahu has filed this intra Court t appeal against the impugned order dated 29.07.2011, passed in W.P.S. No. 4132/2011 whereby learned Single Judge has declined to interfere in the matter of petitioner’s transfer. W.A No. 381 of 2011 3) Learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties found that the order of i petitioner‘s transfer dated 15.07.2011 impugned in the writ petition did not suffer from any illegaiity and as such learned Single Judge dismissed the petitioner’s writ petition. 4) Shri S.K. Dadsena, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that learned Single Judge has erred in not giving due weight to the fact that the petitioner’s transfer order was passed in violation of the scheme-under which the petitioner was deputed for the specified work of ‘Krishi Sangadna'. 5) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the reasonings given by learned Single Judge in_ the impugned order, we are satisfied that the order of petitioner’s transfer and the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge declining to H, interfere in the matter do not suffer from any such infirmity which may warrant interference in this intra Court appgal. 6) The writ appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed m l, 7 L summarily. I Sd/— 1 I Sd/— Chief Justice ‘ Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge i ... 7. nimmi