o \ ^riA^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURICGJ WRIT PETITION N0. 33^6/2004 PETITIONER ) '^y ^ ^^ ^y;^. J^s^^ ^^••^s^^>v>" ^^^- ^^' RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. '' ^^' ^^ .<^v' ^^»6' ^' ^ 4. ^ Puranlal Sahu, aged about 37 years, son of Shri Premlal Sahu, resident of Bhadrakali, Distt. Bijapur (Bastar). State of Chhattisgarh, through : the Secretary, Department of Home, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur (C.G.) The Director General of Police, Department of Home, Head Quarter, Raipur (C.g.) The Superintendent of Police, District Bijapur, Bastar (CG) Jitendra Mishra, Constable, Batch No. 374, Posted at Police Lines—Raipur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF TJiE_CQMSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 3:n^T^T ^TW^ST StiHlcb^Tf?ff 3^ r<ll<<lc'l<4, ^iTft^^KS, fs|dl^^< ^l^^lSh^HT^ 3?T^T .co..^ ^^^ .is^ 200^ ^TT^T^cTT^K^f T&r resp|ondent wfth 13^-2005 On a mention being mad^, Mr. T.K. Tiwari, counsel Mr. Sanjay Shyam Agra^ No.1 to 3. The petitioner, who is at Bhadrakali, District: Bijapur aggrieved by the action of relieving him to join his duties of the transfer order dated 26-E- the petitioner is that aiong transferred to Raipur, but he h^s orderwasissued. R©pSyhas been fiied on| which it has been mentioned tl^at elections the petitioner couid due to paucity of the Police offl< as and when the reiiever of the i have heard it is admjtted position 2004, the petitioner along respondent No.4 was relievedj and aimost more than one ^' petitioner, but he has not beenj of the petitioner is just and pro|per the petitioner in compliance oftji w<t>rking as Constebte in the Potice Department [Bastar). has preferred this writ petition being No.3 because raspondont No.3 is not s|t the new transferred ptace Durg in pursuance -P-2004 issued on 1-3-2004. Further case of the petitioner, respondent No.4 was also i^s been relieved immediately after the transfer learned couhsel for the tttat ^jth cbi^f<n41Ti ^i^^^te^tif^^i.K ^3Tf^T3T?^T ^ th^ case is teken up for hoaring. the petitioner. ^al, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents nbt behaif of the State/respondents No.1 to 3 in on account ofthe Muntcipaland Panchayat be relieved, and the second ground is that cials they are not able to reiive the petitioner, >etitioner wiil come he will be redeved. parties. vide the impugned order dated 1 March, respondent No.4 was transferred, but whereas the petitjoner has not been rejieved, fear has elapsed since the transfer of the relieved. In the circumstances, the grievance oer. Respondent No.3 ought to have reiieved ie transfer order. —^— XI-HC-22 ^l^^ll $b^j<t> 3^ '^i'4i^-4, «iTH'ylic, ?c)dl^^< 3ll^| M5JCh rra- .VW.\^ ^, ,-^r^- 'W^ 200 4- 3:n^T^)T f^TNT'3^1 Sb^ich^rfScf 5b^|ch Soma v ^w^ •^ f^ 3TI^T?^TW:^)N - 2-. Therefore, th@ petitbn is all relieve the petitioner in complianc^ the earliest. }n view of this order, M.(W.] 7155/2004 stand disposed of. Parties are entitied for certifi^d copy ofthis order. ^wed and respondent No.3 is directed to of his transfer order dated 1-3-2004, at )P.No.2951/2004, I.A.Nos.7154/2004 and Ghl^l^^'-T^I^^T^te^Tif^^.K ^3Tf^q"3TI^T Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (Lfl^^f<a^l)