Y-^ £ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION [S] No. S>?o^ /2010 Ram Krishna Mandle, S/o LR.Mandle, Aged about 50 years, Range Officer Basna, Mahasamund Forest Division, Distt - Mahasamund [CG] 1.' 2. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Forest, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG) Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Aranya Bhawan, Medical College Road, Raipur, Distt - Raipur (CG) Divisional Forest Officer, Mahasamund Forest Division, Distt - Mahasamund (CG) L.P. Ogre, s/o not known to the petitioner, Range Officer, Presently posted at Karya-Ayojana Ikai No. 2, Bijapur Forest Division, Distt - Dantewada (CG) Petitioner Respondents WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^c"^ :y.^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.3879 OF 2010 PETITIONER Ram Krishna Mandle RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Ms. NaushinaAli, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 28th 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 Bijapurto Basna. 3. Contention of the petitioner is that earlier by order dated 10-3-2010, the petitioner was transferred from Basna to Gandie and one Shri T.R. Sahu was transferred from Gandie to Basna. Shri Sahu filed W.P. (S) No.1184/2010 and an interim order was passed on 22-3-2010 that the status quo with respect to placement of Shri Sahu, as obtained on the said date, was maintained till the next date of hearing. Learned counsel further submits that as an effect of the above order, Shri Sahu remained at Gandie and the petitioner remained at Basna. However, by the impugned order dated 15-7-2010, the respondent No.4 herein has been transferred from Bijapur to Basna, whereas, there was no order for transfer of the petitioner. After considering all the aspects of the instant matter, this Court by order dated 28-7-2010 granted an interim order in favour of the petitioner directing that the status quo would be maintained in respect of placement ofthe petitioner. ^5' l{& 4. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has already continued at the originalplace of posting for more than 13 months on account of interim order dated 28-7-2010 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 15-7-2010. It is accordingly ordered. 5. Since no effect could be given to the impugned order dated 15-7-2010 on account ofthe interim order dated 28-7-2010, it is not necessary to go into the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 15-7-2010, in the facts ofthe case. 6. In view of the above, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge