Chattisgarh High Court
Mahendra Jain vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 November, 2021
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 379 of 2021
Mahendra Jain S/o Shri Dilip Kumar Jain, Aged About 42 Years R/o
Vardebhata, Kanker District Uttar Baster 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 Baster 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. 5407 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 Arjuni, P.H No. 22 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
