^^^^ (^^&-^-' ^'^.^•"" 3-' ,«*' IN THE mGH COCRT OF CHOATTISGARH AT BlLASP&R WRIT PETITION (S) N0. Si\\^ /2010 Bonifas Ekka, S/o- Shri S. Ekka, Aged about 48 years, Presently working as Station House Officer-Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 1. 2. 3. 4. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through-Secretary, Department ofHome (Police), D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, C.G. Director General ofPolice um Chairman ofState Police Establishment Board, Police Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Inspector General ofPolice (Administration), Police Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Inspector General ofPolice, Bilaspur Range, iS7|^i<y- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. -S Superintendent ofPolice, Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF ESDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRJT fS) IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS ETC. ^ It^ ~':-'"ui 1 <-..^-.<?y.if ^y:-<^ K;g$^ ~i^?>-v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITSON ,/S) N0.2466 OF 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Bonifas Ekka Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others Arun (Writ Petition under Articte 226 of tha Constitution of India) Singte Bench: Hon'bte Shri Satish K. ^nihofri, J. Present:- Shri Pankaj Shrivasia\»,Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dmvedi, Deputy Govemmerrt Advocate tor ths State. ORDER <ORAU ff'assed on this 11th day of May, 2011) 1. Heard leamed counsel for the parti^. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to chatlenge Ihe iegaltty and validity of the order dated 07/11/2009 (Annexure P/1) by whteh the peUtloner has been transferred from Bitaspurto Bijapur. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the State submits that the petltioner has already continued at the original place of posGng for more than 11 months on account of interim order dated 12/05/2010 granted by this Court. The State may be granted liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view public interest and administrative exigency. Leamad counsel ftiriher submits that the State shad not insist upon complisBice of the impugned order dated 07/11/20)9 (Annexure P/1). <t is aecOniingly ordered. 4. Since no effect could be given to the impugned order dated 07/11/20)9 (Annexure P/1) on account ofthe interim order dated 12/050010, it is not necessary to go into the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 07/11/2009 (Annexure P/1), in thefacts ofthe case. 5. The State Government fs at liberty to pass a fresh oreter as afore-stated. However. the State is directed to consider that the ofRcer concemed may be transferred and posted where the post held by tfie petitioner is available. 6. In view of the above, according to learned counset appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication atthis stage. .7. - Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order asto eosts. Sd/- SarishK.Agnihotri Judge