IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No 4740 of 2007
Deo Narayan Pathak
...Petitioner
VERSUS
1 State of Chhattisgarh
2 Managing Director Chhattisgarh
Krishi Vipanan Board Bhawan
Ravigram Raipur
3 Shree Shantanu Panda Mandi
Inspector In charge Secretary
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti
Amandulla District Janjgir Champa
...Respondents
! Shri Ashish Shrivastava Advocate
for the petitioner
^ 1 Shri Satish Gupta Government
Advocate for the State
2 Shri R S Marhas Advocate for
the respondent No 2
3 Shri B D Guru Advocate for
the respondent No 3
Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J
Dated: 28/01/2008
: Oral Order
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
ORAL ORDER
(Passed on 28th day of January, 2008)
I.A. No. 4.
This is an application for taking document on
record. The application is ordered as prayed for.
1. The petitioner, working as Senior Secretary in Krishi
Upaj Mandi Samiti, Raigarh, by order dated 30th July, 2007
(Annexure P/1), was transferred to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti,
Amandulla, District Janjgir Champa, on administrative
grounds. In his place, the respondent No. 3 was transferred
from Amandulla, by the same order.
2. Learned counsel contends that, being aggrieved by the
order dated 30.07.2007, the petitioner approached this Court
challenging the validity of the impugned order mainly on two
grounds. Firstly, the petitioner has suffered on account of
several transfers made frequently, secondly, it is malafide
exercise of power as the impugned transfer order was passed
in order to accommodate respondent No. 3.
3. First contention of the petitioner derives support from
the facts that the petitioner was posted at Krishi Upaj
Mandi Samiti, Bhatapara from where he was transferred to
Jagdalpur. He joined at Jagdalpur on 09.06.2002. After
serving one year at Jagdalpur Mandi Samiti, the petitioner
was transferred to Raigarh vide order dated 25.06.2007.
Again, vide order dated in 30th July, 2007 (Annexure P/1),
the petitioner was transferred to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti,
Amandulla, District Janjgir Champa, on administrative
grounds.
4. On second contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner would submit that there is no reason to transfer
the petitioner. It appears from perusal of the transfer
order itself that it was passed to accommodate respondent
No. 3. Thus, this is a malafide exercise of power influenced
by extraneous considerations.
5. Shri R.S.Marhas, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 2, per contra, would submit that there is no
question of malafide exercise of power as malafide is to be
alleged against a particular person. Mere self-same
statement that the order was passed to accommodate
respondent No. 3, cannot be the basis for proving malafide
against the respondent No. 2. In respect of frequent
transfer, learned counsel would submit that it is a routine
transfer in public interest on account of administrative
exigency. This impugned transfer is the third transfer from
the year 2005. It cannot be held as frequent transfer as the
same was passed due to administrative exigency.
6. Shri B.D.Guru, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3
would submit that the respondent no. 3 has not tried to get
the petitioner transferred and he is ready and willing to
work at any place wherever the respondent No. 2 posts him in
public interest and administrative exigency.
7. Shri Satish Gupta, learned Government Advocate, would
submit that the State is a formal party. The respondent No.
2 is the employer and it is for the respondent No. 2 to
decide the suitability of posting of employees on
administrative exigency and public interest.
8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and
perusal of the pleadings and records appended thereto, it
appears that after filing of this petition, the impugned
transfer order was stayed on 14.08.2007 by this Court. On
the strength of the interim order dated 14.08.2007, the
petitioner has continued on the same place.
9. In the meantime, during the pendency of this petition,
the respondent No. 2 has also passed the order the order
dated 20.08.2007 cancelling the impugned order dated 30th
July, 2007. However, in the order it is stated that the
order was cancelled till the pendency of the writ petition.
It is well settled that an order can be suspended during
pendency of any petition, but it cannot be cancelled for a
limited period.
10. Since the order itself has been cancelled, there is no
question to revive the order. The respondent No. 2, being
the employer is at liberty to place the petitioner as well
as respondent No. 3 at a place where their services are
required without any hindrance, in accordance with law.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view
of the fact that the order has been cancelled, the
respondent No. 2 may not insist upon compliance of the order
dated 30.07.2007. Shri Marhas, learned counsel for the
respondent No. 2 has no quarrel with this submission.
12. In view of the foregoing, it is not necessary to
examine the case on merit as the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner does not press other grounds raised
above.
13. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of, without
insisting upon compliance of the order dated 30.07.2007
(Annexure P/1), which is impugned herein, the respondent No.
2 is at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with
law, keeping in view the public interest and administrative
exigency. No order asto costs.
JUDGE