High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/2979/2017dismissed

Pradeep Shukla v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-07-12Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 2979 of 2017 Pradeep Shukla S/o Shri K. K. Shukla, Aged About 41 Years Occupation Service Posted As Patwari At Halka No. 07 Chapka, Tahsil Bastar, Police Station Bhanpuri, District Bastar, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantrayala, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. Collector, Bastar District Bastar Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.

3. Joint Collector, Bastar District Bastar Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.

4. Deputy Collector, Bastar District Bastar Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Rohit Sharma, Advocate For State :

Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 12/07/2017 Heard.

1. By this petition, the petitioner has sought issuance of direction to the respondent to relieve him in compliance of transfer order dated 7.7.2008.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the transfer order was passed in the year 2008, he was not relieved, aggrieved by which, the petitioner filed a petition in which a direction was issued on 30th July 2009 to consider his representation. The petitioner grievance is that thereafter nothing was done. The petitioner then came to know that in some other cases, persons were relieved without awaiting their reliever. The petitioner again made representation on 9.3.2017, on which, the Collector informed that unless there is a reliever, the petitioner could not be relieved. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. I am afraid, the petitioner cannot be given any relief at this stage, to comply with transfer order which has not been executed till date. If no orders were passed in

-2the year 2009, the petitioner ought to have taken his remedy within a reasonable time. The petitioner remained indolent and after about 8 years, he submitted a fresh representation and then filed this petition.

4. This petition is therefore liable to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Praveen