Chattisgarh High Court
Tapesh Jain vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 November, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 383 of 2021
Tapesh Jain S/o Shri Rameshwar Singh Jain, Aged About 33 Years R/o
Village And Post Korar, Block Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Revenue And Disaster
Management, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. The Collector, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.
3. The Additional Collector, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate.
For Respondents - State : Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Deputy Government Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Goutam Bhaduri, Judge
Judgment on board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
23.11.2021
Heard Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard
Mr. Siddharth Dubey, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents.
2. This appeal is presented against an order dated 06.10.2021 passed by
the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5417 of 2021. The challenge in the writ petition
was to an order of transfer dated 16.09.2021, whereby, the appellant, who is a
Patwari, was transferred from Talakurra, P.H No. 02 Tehsil Kanker to Pakhanjur Sub
Division.
3. The learned Single Judge observed, as follows:
"3. All said and done, the plain reading of the impugned
order clearly reflects that change of place of posting made by
the Additional Collector, Uttar Bastar, Kanker. The distance
between the two place of is not too far distance, which could
cause great inconvenience to the petitioner. Accordingly, this
Court is reluctant to entertain the writ petition at this juncture.
However, in case if the petitioner is not satisfied with the
present place of posting, the only recourse available to the
petitioner is to make appropriate representation to the
authorities concerned which according to the petitioner, he
has already made and his representation is still pending
consideration.
4. Given the said facts, respondent No.3 is directed to
consider the representation of the petitioner on its own merits
in accordance with the transfer policy and rules for change of
place of posting is concerned at the earliest preferably within a
period of six months.
5. While deciding the representation of the petitioner, the
authorities are also expected to consider the same keeping in
view the circular of the State Government dated 09.07.2021 in
respect of shifting of the Patwaris from one place of another is
concerned.
6. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ
petition stands disposed of."
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, the
appellant submitted a representation dated 11.10.2021, which came to be
disposed of by an order dated 29.10.2021. The appellant has filed an
application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to bring on
record the representation dated 11.10.2021 and the order dated 29.10.2021
passed by the Deputy Collector.
5. The aforesaid fact of submitting a representation by the appellant
demonstrates that the appellant, at the first instance, had no grievance against
the order dated 06.10.2021 of the learned Single Judge and had acted upon
the same, and therefore, the order had attained finality. It is only when the
representation came to be dismissed, recourse is taken to challenge the order
dated 06.10.2021 by filing this appeal. It will be impermissible to allow the
appellant to approbate and reprobate.
6. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal and
accordingly, the same is dismissed. No cost.
7. However, before parting with the records, we observe that if the
appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.2021, the appellant will be at
liberty to assail the same in accordance with law, if so advised.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Goutam Bhaduri)
Chief Justice Judge
Hem
