§ 8 K7 0" I 9’6’/ IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. LII 2 é OF 2009 / PETITIONER P.K. Gupta Aged about 43 years, S/o Shri A.P. Gupta, ,Working as Tahsildar Takhatpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh VERSUS / RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh / 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Department of General Administration, DKS BJ/jayan, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Coliector, Bilaspur District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4/ Chhattisgarh State Election Commission Through the Commissioner, Mahanadi Khand, Mantralaya Premises, Raipur Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OR WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, ' CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDERS OR ORDERS OR THE LIKE ‘ ..c.........,..c§. zaoj Judge $3113??? mmm W$§$§m SB : HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PFITINKER DIWAKER 07.05.2999 Shri Dheeraj Wankhede, c unsel for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, G.A. fo the State. Challenge in the presen petition is to the order dated 30.6.2009 (Annexure 13/2) passe by the respondent No.1 by Which the petitioner who is working as ahsildar has been transferred from Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur to Dis ‘ct Surguja. Contention of counsel for t e petitioner is that vide order dated 15. 1.2007 the petitioner was tran ferred from Malkharouda to Janjgir and thereafter vide order dated .10.2008 he was again transferred from Janjgir to Takhatpur, Dist 'ct Bilaspur and now by the order impugned he has been again tr nsferred from Biiaspur to Surguja. Thus according to the petitione the present is a case of frequent transfer. Contention of counsel for the State is that let the petitioner make a representation to the res ondent No.1 and the same would be decided in accordance with law. Counsel for the petitione agrees to make a representation. However he submits that till is representation is decided, the petitioner may be given some pro ective order. L Accordingly, the petition i disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a representat' n within a period of ten days from j the date of receipt of the copy of this order, the same would be ‘/ i decided within a period of three eeks from the date of its receipt. Till i then the impugned order shall no, be given effect to and the petitioner 1 would be allowed to perform his uties in his present place of posting. i r—# i ; SdL‘ i Pritinker Diwaker ' m