K. P. Tiwari v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 6454 of 2017

1. K. P. Tiwari S/o Late Komal Prasad Tiwari Aged About 56 Years Occupation Sub Engineer Water Resources Department , R/o Adarsh Nagar Pulgaon Bi - Pass Road Near Church Police Station Kotwali District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Water Resource Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Joint Secretary, Water Resource Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya , New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Engineer In Chief, Water Resource Department Sihava Bhawan Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4. Superintendent Engineer Shivnath Circle District Durg Chhattisgarh.

5. Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department Tandula District Durg Chhattisgarh.

6. Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Petitioner Shri S.K. Verma, Advocate For Respondent/State Shri Ashutosh Pandey, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 27/11/2017 1.

In petitioner's earlier writ petition, bearing WPS No.4929 of 2017, this Court passed the following order on 22-9-2017 :

The only ground to assail the impugned transfer order is the personal ground which can be best appreciated by the transferring authority and not by the Court.

The petitioner has already preferred representation.

Let the representation of the petitioner be decided by the concerned authority within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petition is accordingly finally disposed off.

2.

Petitioner has preferred fresh writ petition on the same cause of action on the ground that his representation is not decided and he is likely to be relieved.

3.

I am afraid, in view of the previous order passed by this Court, the present petition is not maintainable, as the cause of action which arose on account of his transfer order dated 10-8-2017 is one and the same in both the writ petitions. 4.

The petitioner, if so desires, may file contempt petition. 5.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.

Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Gowri