3m£§§af5 P“ ‘BEFORE THE HoN’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR I ‘ WRIT PETITION (S) N0. L )2E5 /2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS VERSUS A. Albert Kujur, aged about- 49 years, s/o. late‘ Shri S. Kujur, Curre posted at Basiar Zane N Operation, Base Camp Damkasa, District- Kanker (C.G.)., . State of Chhattisgarh,’ Through:- Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Director General of Poiice, Police Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisga Chairman, Poiice Establishment i Board, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Inspector General of Police (Admn.), Poiice Headquarters, Chhattisgarh Inspector General of Poiice (Naxai Operation), Chhattisgarh /4. Raipur, 1. ‘ PARTICULARS OF THE PETlTlONER(S) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA As mentioned in the‘cause title. nt! a r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.1305 OF 2010 PETITIONER Albert Kujur Versus I 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 Saurabh Dangi, Advocate for the petitioner. RESPONDENTS Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Adv. General with Shri P.K. Bhduri, Panei Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 28‘“ day of April, 2010) Heard learned counsel for the” parties. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was posted at Police Station Purani Basti, District Raipur. Without completion of two years of posting at Police Station, Purani Basti, District Raipur, by order dated 7-11-2009 (Annexure— P/1) the petitioner was transferred to Bijapur, which is against the proVisions prescribed under Section 14' of the Chhattisgarh Police Act, 2007 (for short “Act, 2007”). Section 14 of the Act, 2007 provides that in case of administrative exigency the same shall be recorded in writing or on the request of the employee, the bar of two years may be lifted. 3. In the case on hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no request on the part of the petitioner and if, it was a case of administrative exigency there was nothing recorded in writing to make reasons for transferring the petitionergafter taking recourse to sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act, 2007. 4. Shri Dangi, further submits that being aggrieved by the impugned transfer order; the petitioner preferred an appeal under the provisions of Section'22 of the Act, 2007 to the Police Establishment Board on 13-1 1-2009 (Annexure — P/5). Sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the Act, 2007 provides for consideration and disposal of representation within a period of 90 days from the date of order. 90 days have lapsed; the Police Establishment Board has not passed any order. It appears that the provisions of the Act, 2007 has been violated at two places i.e. firstly; while passing the transfer order without assigning the reasons and secondly; by not considering the appeai/ representation within 90 days, which is statutory prescribed limit. At this juncture, Shri Murthy, learned Dy. Adv. General appearing with Shri Bhaduri, learned Panel Lawyer, submits that the pending appeal/representation of the petitioner, before the Police Establishment Board, the same shall be considered and decided within a period of 14 days. ln view of foregoing, without examining the merits of the case, the Director General of Police/respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the pending appeal/representation of the petitioner within a period of 14 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. However, it is made clear that till disposal of the appeal/representation, the impugned order dated 7-11-2009 (Annexure - P/1), passed in respect of the petitioner, shall not be given effect to. Sdl— mHoTR‘ Ashok ‘2 SATISH K- AG Judge VD