^v^.'j'y "^e ?^^^v^ ^••-•••"^VDI- [pi~] ASV IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR /C.6J WRIT PETCTEON ( S ) NO.Hl4'2>3 OF 2011 /'" PETCTEONER : Dinesh Kumar yadav S/o. Late Shri Sudershan Lal Yadav, aged about 40 Years, Occupation - Servke. Posted as Patwari at Hdka No. 09 Sonarpal, Tahsil - Baster , bistt-.- Jagdalpur ( C.6.} VERSUS RESPONDENTS : ^ -^.'f'vvy The State of Chhattisgarh. through the Secretary Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.fi.) The Cotlector , Jagdalpur, Distt.- Jagdalpur (C.G.) Virendra Kumar Jha. Patwari posted at J-ldka No. 10 Halba JKachora, Tahsil Jagdalpur, bistt.- Jagdalpur ( C.G.) WRITPETrTION UNDER AR7TCLES 226 OF THE CONSTCTUTEON OF INDIA FOR ISSUEANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT. 1. PAftTCCULARS OF THE PETTTCONER : As stated in the. cause title. nbove. l,il ~\ "a:"*sjs i ^y/. '^"'.^' .%" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PET!T!ON (S) N0.4433 OF 2011 Dinesh KumarYadav Versus The State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Dr. Sanjeet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 8th day ofAugust, 2011) 1. hleard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 15-7-2011 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Patwari Halka No. 9 Sonarpal, Tahsil Bastar to Patwari Halka No.21 Badekawali, Tahsil Jagdalpur. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed stating that on the own request of the petitioner, whereas the petitioner has made an application along with the respondent No.3 for their mutual transfer from Patwari Halka No.09 to Patwari Halka No.10. The wife of the petitioner died on 20-6-2010 leaving two children aged about 7 & 10 years and no one is there in the family to look after them. If the impygned order is executed the children of the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss. Therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to file a representation before the respondent authorities by mentioning all of his grievances to consider his case afresh. 4. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that ifthe petitioner submits a representation within 10 days raising his grievances, the same shall be considered and decided, in accordance with law and on its own merits, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. Till the representation of the petitioner is decided, the impugned order dated 15-7-2011 (Annexure - P/1), in respect of the petitioner, shall not be given effect to. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^