lN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. PETITIONER Q\&L OF 201a Nashar Ullah Siddiqui, aged about 33 years Slo Shri H.U Siddiqui, Occupation Service, Working as Station House Officer, Police Station-Tarbahar Bilaspur, District -Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Home (Poiice), Mantraiaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Director General of Poiicetcum—Chairman of State Police Establishment Board, Police Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh inspector General of Police (Administration) Police Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Superintendent of Police, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh RESPONDENTS 1. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OR WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI. PROHIBITION. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDERS OR ORDERS OR THE LIKE AIL Am; £TLHQ 4§Q1§ ashar Ulieh ddiqm Vemus State of Chhattisgarh & othe. Wf PETIION UER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTiTUTN OF iNDl (SB : Horrase Mr. Satish K. Agnihpm, ; - Shri Dheeraj Kumar ankhede, Advocate for the petitioner. hri Shashank Thaku Panei Lawyer for e Stet. Petitiong; Bg§§ 29ad§n E {Paswd on ay of ay, 2010) Heard Seaned cotunsei for the parties. 1. Case of th petitioner is that the petitioner s sted as Station House Officer, Poitce Station Tarbahar, Bitaspu Distrie—Biiaspur. Without compietion of two years of posti at Poiice Station, Tarbahar, by order dated 07-11-2009 (Annexure Pit) he petitioner was transfred to Kanker, which is against he ovision prescribed under Section 14 of the Chhattisgar‘h Police Act, 2007 {for short “Act, 2007"}, 2. Section 14 of the Act, 2007 provides that in case of administrative exigency, it the same is recorded in writing or on the request of the empioyee', the bar of two years may be titted. in the case on hand, teamed counsei for the petitioner submits that there is no reouest . on the cart . of the Petitioner and it, it was a case of administrative exigency, there was nothing recorded in writing to make reasons for transferring the petitioner after taking recourse to sub-section {2)‘0? Section 14 0t the Act, 2007. Shri Wankhede, further submits that being aggrieved by the imeugned transfer order; the petitioner preferred an appeai under the provisions oi Section 22 of the Act, 2W7 to the Director Generai of i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTHSGARH AT 33ILA$PUg WRITEE 13.2 M3- 2E£Z N Si rs RT T ND iO A J &esem : W S r, th e gnnmRAg 4W D M e wa po r. ng t er t prs 2 A/ Poh'ce, Admmistratiom, Poke Headquarter, Raipur, or: 18.11.20G§ (Annexure PI?) Sub-sectién (3} of Section 22 of the Act,‘ 2007 @rovides for consideration and disposal of representation within a period o'f 90 days from the date of order. $0 days have 3apsed; the Police Establishment Board has not paésed any order. it appears that the that the pending appeaifrepresgniaiion of the petitioner, before the Police Estabiishment Board, the same sfyai} be considered and decided wiihin a period of 14 days. in view of foregoing, without examining the merits of the case, the Director Genera? of Poiice/respondent No. 2 is directed to consider Accordingiy, the writ petition is disposed of. However, it is made ciear that {iii disposai of :he appeaiirepresentaiion, the impugned order dated 07..H.2009 (Annexure PH), passed in respect of the petitioner, sheii hot be given effect to. Vise/- .x/vrs, a r SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Ashok Judge W Vi {owes