Prahlad Singh Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Singh Verma, Prahlad 58 Years, Aged About- S/o- Shri Kaliram Verma Service- Occupation- Working as Patwari P.H. No. 22, Thasil-Saja, District- Bemetara (C.G.) <s tt- VERSUS RESPONDENT(Sl:l7 State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretaiy, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)
Collector, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) <''
Collector, Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE^ 226^ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1078 OF 2012 PETITIONER Prahlad Singh Verma RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others Versus (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. . Present:- Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 19th day of March, 2012) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Challenge in this petition is to the communication dated 25.02.2012 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Collector, Durg, addressed to Sub Divisional OfficeT (Revenue) Dondilohara, Balod, Durg, Patan, Saja and Berla, whereby it has been directed that the transfer and the Patwaris have been cancelled vide order dated posting of 30.12.2011 (Annexure - P/2) and the Patwaris be directed to resume their duties at their original place of posting. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner, working as Patwari at PH No.31 Tirga, Durg, was transferred to PH No.31 Godmarra, Saja, on 2/8.12.2011 (Annexure P/3), pursuant to which the petitioner was relieved on 27.12.2011 (Annexure - P/5). petitioner has taken the charge of his new place of posting vide order dated 6.1.2012. He next contends that once the transfer further submits that Learned counsel order has been complied with pursuant to the reveling order dated 27.12.2011, the same cannot be cancelled.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that admittedly, the petitioner has joined the new place of posting on 6.1.2012, however, it is also an admitted position that the order of vide order dated transfer dated 2/8.12.2011 was 'cancelled
30.12.2011, i.e. before joining the new place of posting. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused thu pleadings and documents appended thereto. ^.It is not a case where after joining the new place of posting, the order cAtransfer has been cancelled. The petitioner has joined on
Operative part
6.1.2012 after cancellation of the transfer order dated 2/8.12.2011, on 30.12.2011. Thus, it cannot be said that the impugned order ha§ been passed after comptiance of the transfer order. The petitioner has not challenged the impugned order on any other permissible legal ground i.e. infraction of any statutory rules or regulations, lack of competence of the officer passing the impugned order or mala fide. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit, at the admission stage itself. Gowri Sd'- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge "%
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.