High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/1596/2018dismissed

Bhojram Bapure v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2018-02-20Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1596 of 2018 Bhojram Bapure Late Guman Bapure, Aged About 58 Years R/o Prem Nagar, Irrigation Colony, Sukma, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh., District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Irrigation Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Project, Irrigation Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Superintending Engineer, Indrawati Project Division, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

4. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Sukma, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh., District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Punit Ruparel, Advocate For State :

Shri Majid Ali, Dy. Govt. Advocate S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 20/02/2018 Heard on admission.

1. The present is a peculiar writ petition whereby the relief sought by the petitioner is for execution of transfer order which was passed by the respondent about 8 years ago. The petitioner who is presently working as Sub Engineer in Water Resource Division- Dantewada was transferred to Water Resource Division Gariyaband vide order dated 6.8.2010.

2. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition which was filed on

-213.2.2018 i.e. after about 8 years from the date of issuance of transfer order is that though the petitioner has been transferred under the impugned order passed in the year 2010, till date, he has not been relieved to join at the transferred place.

3. From the aforesaid facts of the case, it is apparently clear that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches. The petitioner was transferred vide order dated 6.8.2010. He immediately came to know about the order of transfer. However, for 8 years, except of making couple of representation, there does not appear to be any serious effort made by the petitioner for his relieving. The petitioner did not take any recourse to law at an appropriate stage.

4. Thus, the petition is not maintainable as is suffers from delay and laches and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-----/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Praveen