High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/6503/2017disposed off

Aditya Narayan Dwivedi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-11-28Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 6503 of 2017 • Aditya Narayan Dwivedi S/o Shri Kameshwar Prasad Dubey, Aged About 53 Years R/o Ramanujnagar (Shrinagar), District Surajpur Chhattisgarh Pin 497333 ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Commissioner Land Records, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Commissioner, Surguja Division, Surguja District Surguja Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Collector, Land Records, Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh

5. Sub Divisional Officer ( Revenue ), Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh

6. Tahsildar, Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Petitioner Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate.

For Respondents Shri Sameer Behar, P.L.

Order On Board 28/11/2017

1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.11.2017 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Patwari Halka No.22 Odgi, District Surajpur to Patwari Halka No.08 Pahadkarwa, Tahsil Pratappur District Surajpur on the ground of administrative exigency.

2. The ground raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner has been transferred without there being any administrative exigency and the impugned order has been passed with malafide intention only to harass the petitioner. The impugned order of transfer has been passed by the Collector without having any jurisdiction as the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Sub-Divisional Officer.

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 04 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 12 weeks or till the representation is decided, whichever is earlier, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue at their respective places of posting.

6. All the writ petitions are 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 Akhilesh