THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (S) N0. ^ 2'2>iS /2011 PETITIONER &' A)^ '.^<% ;>•»- •i^-^, i..A5*-"' *.: Srat. Manjula Goswarai (wrongly raention in impugned order as Smt. Manjula actually she is Ku. Manjula Goswarai), D/o Vakaram Goswami, aged about 54 years, R/o Shankar Nagar Durg, Near Buddh Vihar Chowk, Durg, Tahsil SE Distt. Durg (C.G.) working as Staff Nurse in District Hospital Durg (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary Health and Family Welfare, Department, D.K.S. Bhav/an, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Director Health Services, Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, Durg Distt. Durg (C.G.) Chief Medical and Health Office.r, Durg, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ''f^f'5^' ,^'X'i^CLE 226 OF THE .UK 'l HIGH COIJRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT Bn.ASPIJR PETITIONER WRTT PETmON (8) No. 5898 of2011 Smt Manujula Ooswami. RESPONDENTS VRRSIJS Stete ofChhattisgarh & Other.s. WRIT PEIITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF IHE CONSTTTUriON OF INDIA SB: Hon'Ne Shri Satish K. Asniliotri. 3. Present: Shri B.P.Singh, Advocate tbrthe petiti'oner Shii Arati Sao, Govei-maeiit Advocate for the State/rBSpondaits ORDKR (Passed on 30th day ofSeptember, 2011) 1. At the very outset leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondenfs submit that eariier, the petitiQner has filed a writ oetition beine W.P.(S) No. 4870/201 1 impugmne the transfer order dated 15.07.2011 passed bv the ChiefMedieal & Health Officer, Diirg, which is impugned in this petition also. 2. In W.P.(S) No. 4870/2011, on hearing leamed counsel appearing for the petifioner as well as the State/respondent No. 1 and 2, notices were issued on 01.09.2011 and it was directed to list the matter after service in respect ofrespondent No. 3 was complete. 3. Since no mterim reiiefwas g-anted in that petition, it appears that the petitioner has attempted to file this second writ petition for the same relief, as soueht for in the eariier writ petitioa. It is a clear case wherein the petitioner ha.s misled the Court and concealed the fact offiiing ofthe earlier writ petition. 4. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with cost, auantified to be a siun of Bs.3.500/- pavable to tfae State Crovemmerrt. Amit Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNIHOW Judge