^l BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ( CHHATTISGARH ) W^.^^.No. S6&S /2010 EEIITIQN^ r BK Tanveer Ahmad, S/o Shri Siraj Ahmad, aged about 48 years, R/o Mominpura, Ambikapiir, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS y' ..•••;. ^ov.^-'^v ^;^> ^ '.-^^"/is.y ^ >v ».'.--^3 Ka" lte.>,- 1, gtate of Chhattisgarh, Through-Its Secretary Veterinary Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. 'Under Secretary, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3." Director Veterinary Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA :"*''s'?.;^\ ''-.'i'??^^^.^ HIGHCOURTOF_CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRnLPETITION (S) N0.3688 OF 2010 PETITIONER Dr. Tanveer Ahmad RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri T.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 7th day of September, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 15-7-2010 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Veterinary Hospital, block Ambikapur, District Sarguja to Veterinary Hospital, Sukma, District Dantewada. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has already continued at the original place of posting for more than 13 months on account of interim order dated 22-7-2010 granted by this Court. The State/respondents may be granted liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view public interest, administrative exigency and in accordance with the circular dated 16-8-1999 that the petitioner may be posted in 'A' class veterinary hospital only. Learned counsel further submits that the State/respondents shall not insist upon compliance of the impugned order dated 15-7-2010. It is accordingly ordered. 4. Since no effect could be given to the impugned order dated 15-7-2010 on account of the interim order dated 22-7-2010, it is not necessary to go into the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 15-7-2010, in the facts ofthe case. 5. In view of the above, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication at this stage. 6. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^