In a writ petition challenging a relieving order issued pursuant to a transfer, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the unchallenged transfer order cannot be examined and the relieving order stands vitiated.
Petition dismissed. Petitioner directed to approach authorities concerned regarding alleged grievance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
3mm 35m;
;?
(agm’aZf
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. :j ‘3 SRL /2010
PETITIONER
Rekhraj Singh Sahu S/o Late Shri Kanshi Ram Sahu, aged '55 about years, Forest Guard, posted at Kishanpur Beat/ Nursery Kishanpur, Range Pithora, Forest Divisional Mahasamund Distt Mahasamund (c.G.)
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS
State of Chhattisgarh through The‘Secretary, Forest Department D.K.S. Bh‘awan Raipur (C.G.)
Sub’ Divisional Officer(Forest), “District Pithora, Mahasamund (co)
' Range fffficer, Forest Range Fithora,‘”District Mahasamund
(C.G;)t « 7 I
WRITPETITKONUNDERARTICLE226OFTHE CONSTITUTIONOFINDIA
HXGH COURT OF CHHAT’I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 7352 0f2010
FETiTiONER Rekin‘aj Si11g'h Sahu.
VERSUS
RESE’ONDENTS
: State of Chhattisgarh & Others.
WRIT PE’E‘I’HON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSrI‘ITUTIONOF INDIA
SB: }{{m’§)§e $1111 Satisii K. Agnihotri J.
V
Fresent: Shri S.K.Dadsena{ Advocate fer the petitioner. Shri AV.Shrkihaag Pans} Lawyer for the State/res;mi1dents.
wRma‘R (GRAL) (Passed0n015i{33y ofFebmary,2011)
Chaiienge in this petition is to the order tiated 31.7.2010 (AmaxureP/l)whereiwthe petitionerhasbeenaske(§totake relieving from the origina1 placeof postingand proceedto jointhe new piaoe of posting purSuant to the order dated 15.7.2010 whereby the petitioner was transferred fromvRange,Pithora,Forest Bivision Mahasamund to Range Waérafnagar, Forest Division North Surglja, atongwith 17 other persons, ’2. ieamed‘ counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the getitionerhasnotmadeanyapplicationforhistransfer.Thus,the orrier dated 15.07.2010 transferring the petitionerfromone place to another. is without any basis. i Be that as it may, since the orderdated15.7.2010isnotunder ehaltenge in this petition therefore, it camtot be examined asto whether the same was passedvon the request ofthe petitioner, or or on administrative exigency. The reiieving order dated 31.07.2010,
pursuant1:9thearder(iated15.7.2010cammtbehcldasVitiaie&on any account.Thus,the petitiondeservest0beandisaccordingly iiigmissed.
Hawever.ifthe petitionerhasany grievancewithregardltohis transfer which 1o ailegec?tohavebeenmadeWithoutanyrequest, the petitionerisatlibertytomakeappropriateapplicationtothe au’thoritiesconcemed for redressal of his grievance,andinthe event anappiication is made, thesamemaybeconsideredand
appropriate ordermaybe passedbytherespondentauthorities,in
accordancewithlaw.
s‘ , Sd/_ ‘\L i Satish K. Agnihotri Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a transfer order executed by issuing a relieving order amounts to a writ-liable action in absence of challenge to the transfer order itself.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rekhraj Singh Sahu
State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary, Forest Department
Satish K. Agnihotri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
