Narendra Kumar Kashyap v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 4730 of 2017 • Narendra Kumar Kashyap, S/o Late Mithoo Lal Kashyap, Aged About 54 Years, R/o House No.332, Behind W/1, Near Mumju Property Dealer, Yadunandan Nagar, Ward No. 1, Tifra, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of CoOperative Society, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Assistant Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Collectorate Premises, Room No.224, 228, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

3. Shri Jaleshwar Kulmitra S/o Shri S. Kulmitra, Working As Manager Co-Operative Societies, Collectorate Premises, Room No. 224, 228, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.

4. Smt. Nandani Kulmitra W/o Jaleshwar Kulmitra, Vice President Co-Operative Society Suretha Block Lormi R/o Village Deverhat, Post Deverhat Tehsil Lormi District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner Shri Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate For Respondent-State Shri Sameer Behar, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 07/11/2017 1.

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 14.08.2017, by which the petitioner has been transferred from Lormi, District Mungeli to District Bijapur on the ground of administrative exigency.

2.

The ground raised by the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed with malafide intention, just to harass the petitioner and on the political influence.

3.

Considering the facts situation of the case, it would be appropriate to allow the petitioner to prefer a representation before the concerned competent authority raising his grievance against the impugned transfer order.

4.

Let the petitioner prefer representation within a period of 4 weeks from today and thereafter, the concerned competent authority shall consider and decide the same within the next 8 weeks, in accordance with law and on its own merits.

5.

For a period of 10 weeks or till the representation is decided, whichever is earlier, the status quo, as it exists today, in respect of the petitioner's posting, shall be maintained. 6.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 7.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the matter, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without treating any observation made in this order, as opinion on the merits of the case.

Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Nirala