IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 109 (SB) of 2010 Nanda Ballabh Pathak. ……..…Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. …….….Respondents. Present: Mr. M.S. Pal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Mukul Dangi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Coram: Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 09.06.2010 passed by respondent no. 2, which is contained in Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition. Petitioner has also prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner, which is contained in Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition. Heard Mr. M. S. Pal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Mukul Dangi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned standing counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondents. Having considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that it is not a fit case in which order of transfer dated 09.06.2010 should be quashed at this stage. However, we direct the respondent no. 2 to decide the 2 representation moved by the petitioner within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With this observation, writ petition is disposed of. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (B.C. Kandpal, J) 18.06.2010 SKS