^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. CH_HATnSGARH_ WRITPETITIONNo. 2-©^ OF 2003 < PETITIONER Shashibhushan Kushwaha/ aged /about 49 years, S/o Late Shjvial Kushwaha, working as Deputy Forest Ranger, Deputy Range Dharampur, Range Pratappur, North Sarguja Forest Dlvlslon, Dlstrict Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) Versys EESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the ...^€> .••••"^'^.^*' ^""^<^^^''~ / 2. The Conservator of Forest, ^•^»A>t^ / Ambikapur, District Sarguja &<v^...-'" ' (Chhafctjsgarh) ^" ./ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/22^ OF THE. CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA ^-1. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench; Hoa'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. WRIT PBTITION N0. 2096 OF 2003 Petitioner : Shashibhzishaii Kiishwalia Versus Respondents : State of Chhatdsgarh & anofher Presesit: Shri B.D. Giini, counsel for flie petitioner. Shri Paakaj Shrivastava, paael lawyer for tlie respondents. ORALORDBR (7th pebruary, 2006) 1. The petitioner was workiag as Depiity Forest Ranger at Depuly Raage Dharampnr, Raage^Pratappiir, North Sargzija Forest Divisioii. He was transfeiTed by iinpugned order dated 3,7,2003 to Dharaisijaigarh Forest Division of Raigarh distdct in fhe saaie capacity due to adiainistrative exigency. 2. The petitioner has fUed fhis petition challenguig the unpugned order, This Court by order dated 25.8.2003 graated uiterim reUef to the petitioner to fhe efFect that fhe petitioner would not be reUeved if he had not been reUeved. This order was neither inodi&ed nor varied. Thereafter, flie petitioner has contuiued to reniairi at the old place of posting by virtue of fhe iiitenin order dated 25.8,2003, passed by this Coiirt. The petitioner has already got fiiial reUef ia fhe niatter. 3, In view of the above it is not necessaiy at fhis stage to go iiito fhe validity of fhe unpugned order, However, ui fhe facts of the 7J case it is expected th.at the respondents/aufhorities wiU not insist zipon coinpUaiice of fhe traasfer order dated 3,7.2003, in respect of the petitioner. The respondents/aufh.orities are at Uberty to pass appropriate order for posting the petitioner ia tlie pubUc interest aad adiniaistrative exigency, ui accordance wifh law. 4. In view offhe foregoiag, fhe petition staads disposed of, No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge c^