..^.^^'- v^^ ^4^S&""""' ; ' .' ':..; ; ': •;l;;.:^^r:^ : ::/::: •• mTHEHlG^CGlJKTOKGffiIMI^ ^VMT^ETTnOW(S)^. ^l^ /2010 •*''...'."••'. ' ." "' •• • •'. • '• • ;':''' - ' '.'; '-.'- : ;:;':','::'- '•'•••••'•'• ••'..'. :' Lalchaad Mohle, ' : ' j ';•:•:,..., '. ' , !• . :1 •' : • • S/o-.Shn:Anjordas,. ..'1,'';^';''; ''•):.ll:u Aged:abQHt:46'years,..:-'^lS.<','':^;;';.i;^ : :• .: Presently working as Stati<m House OffiGer^alo^ Distt.;R^ipuriGhhattisgary.:^::"::':'^i':''^ .^^-•.^•PETmONER: ::;VERSUS ' ,:: '- /:..•:...';:....-•,:;,.. :,-,;:^ 1.'- ,'State::QfChhattisgaFh,:,^:..:,,:^'j:^ :. . . .. 1.'1,.,: : • ,' : ,: :.; .Tlucmgh-Secretary,. - . .•r^'-f ,:-.:.^^ .:'•';,:.:, , : ':.'-'.•l.". .^•.•. .:" DepartmentofHome (I^ice),.^;^ •'. ^; ,•, r -•^ l D.K.S.Bhawa.n;,,ManteaIaya,'Raipur,G'.Cr... ^. •'' ^^^' . 1. DirectorG«neral<)fPQlicecunrChairiHanofStat6P61ice EstablisUnientBQard,PoliceHeadquartere, ; ^^^^^^ . : Raipin-,Chhattisgarh. .; ^ ; • ? •^^ • '^^^^•^^^^^^^^^•^^^^^^^^^. 3. "^ IiispectorGen^lpfPOlice(A^imstiratM^ PoIiGe adquarters,,Raipilr,,CKIiattisgaili.^ :<^';.:.:^.^ .:„..• .^..•;.^.;,^ 4. " Inspe(^r0eneral:6fPolice,^^^purRfflige, ^^^^^^^^^^^: • ' •;Rai{jHr,:Qi}iaaisgai5li.?.^:'''^^i"i';:.'^ : • 1,:^'..,. :- '• v^ ^- Supenntenderit'oEI'ol^e;^ ^|:.,^;y,^ ';^.;::;.:,'''':^': ••' ' :Raipur,^DiSt.RaiFur,.CliKaNsgaite,',':,^:1^^ Wim'.PETTnOwM' ffi%.^'l2Ct^^ y^ ...eO^STKlMlEMaiBIBMUffffii^ •^APPROI®M'I3K%RfflBi^NaBiBliy '• eE]EtraQRim®^KN3 i»Si®T r ^ '13 iKi HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.5177 OF 2010 PETITIONER Lalchand Mohte RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- 4. 5. 6-. Gowri Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passedon this18th day ofAugust, 2011) Heard learned counsel forthe parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 16-8-2010 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from District Raipurto District Bijapur. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has already continued at the original place of posting for more than 11 months on account of interim order dated 9-9-2010 granted by this Court. The State/respondents may be granted liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view public interest and administrative exigency. Learned counsel further submits that the State/respondents shall not insist upon compliance ofthe impugned order dated 16-8-2010. It is accordingly ordered. Since no effect could be given to the impugned order dated 16-8-2010 on account of the interim order dated 9-9-2010, it is not necessary to go into the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 16-8-2010, in the facts ofthe case. In view of the above, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge ?/