mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAKH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS -<.-• WntPetitionCS)No.5ai6of2e07 S.N. Singh, Aged about 56 years son of Shri Pen Singh, Working as Additional Tahsildar, Sakti, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS 1. State of CUhattisgarh, throu^i The Secretary, Deparhiient of Revenue, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. The Avar SaeUv, Department ofRevenue and Calamety Management, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 3. Distt. CoHector, Distt, Bilaspur (CG). 4. Jai Shankar Urao (Fafliers name not known to fhe petitioner), working as Naib Talisildar, Tah. Ganiyari, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). (WBIT PETITION LNDER. ARTICLE 226 OF THB CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (8B: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Affluhotri. J.'! Present : Shri V. Vijay, Advocate forthepetitioner. Shri S.K. Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3. Shri Anand K. Tiwari, Advocate for the rcspondent No. 4. ORALORDER (Passed on 22nd ofJaiiuaiy, 2008) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 31.08.2007 (Annexure P/l), has filed a representation on 05.09.2007 (Amiexure P/8) befbre the respondent No. 1. After filing the representation, the petitioner, on next date prepared writ '^ petition and filed on 12.09.2007. 2. Leanied counsel further submits tliat tliere is no reason not to give sufEcient time to the autfaoritieg to consider and pass an appropriate order tar on the representation made by the petitioner. Leanied counsel submits that flie representation would be considered and decided within a period ofthree weeks. 3. Sliri Tiwari, couiuel for the respondent No. 4 submits that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hattds as the orders dated 28.08.2006, 25.09.2006 aiid dated 27.07.2007 are of the placement within tiie district Bilaspur, the petitioner, working as Additional Tahsildar, has mislead the Court stating that the petitioner is victim ofthe frequent transfers. 4. On query, tfae couiisel for the petitioner is not in position to rebut the submission made by the leanied counsel for the respondent No. 4. Even otfaerwise, on pen-isal ofthe papers, it is apparent that the orders stated above are not a transfer ordere but orders of placement of the petitioner within same district from one Tahsil to otfaer Tahsil. 5. In view ofthe categorical statement inade by the leanied counsel for the State/respondents, it is not necessary to decide the matter on merit as the chaUenge ofthe petitioner on the validity ofthe impugned transfer order is not onthe basis ofthe permissible ground. 6. The petitioner has failed to make out a case on merit on the ground of strong malafide. Thus, tliere is no merit m tliis petitio*i, accordingly the petition is dismissed. However, a liberty is reserved to tSie petitioner to pursue the representation pending coiisideration before the authorities. 7. Tlie respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the saine in accordaace witfa law preferably withiii a period of four weeks' from Ifae date of receipt of a copy ofthe order. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Sahn