Chattisgarh High Court
Dr. Manish Upadhyaya vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 January, 2022
1
(Proceedings through video conferencing)
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Appeal No. 44 of 2022
Dr. Manish Upadhyaya, S/o Shri Umesh Prasad Upadhyay, aged
about 37 years, R/o Near Sub Health Centre Awapalli Block Usur
District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health and Family
Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur,
Civil and Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Director Health Services, Raipur, Civil and Revenue District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
3. Under Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Civil and Revenue District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4. Collector Bijapur, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.
5. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bijapur, District Bijapur,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondents : Ms. Astha Shukla, Government Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
28.01.2022
Heard Mr. Akash Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents.
2. This appeal is directed against an order dated 21.12.2021 passed
by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 6959 of 2021, which
reads as follows:
"Mr. Akash Pandey, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Baxy, PL for the State/respondents.
Learned State counsel is directed to seek
instruction and to file affidavit within two weeks.
However, application for interim relief is rejected as
petitioner has been posted in Primary Health Centre,
Tarlaguda, as there in no doctor is posted therein.
List the matter after two weeks."
3. Mr. Akash Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the appellant has been transferred twice within a period of 05 months and
the learned Single Judge did not consider this aspect of matter while
refusing to stay the order of transfer. It is further submitted by Mr. Pandey
that if the transfer order is given effect to, the writ petition will become
infructuous.
4. Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate, drawing attention
of the Court to paragraph 28 of the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of
this Court in Writ Appeal No. 255 of 2016, Ajay Gupta vs. State of
Chhattisgarh & Others, submits that a writ appeal against an order of the
learned Single Judge, arising of an order of transfer, is not maintainable.
It is further submitted that, even otherwise, the matter was directed to be
listed after two weeks and therefore, on facts also, no interference is
called for.
5. The submission of the Mr. Pandey that writ petition will be rendered
infructuous, if stay is not granted against the transfer order, is
misconceived. Refusal to grant stay does not mean that a finality is
attached to the issue in question.
6. The writ Court, on due consideration, in exercise of powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India has the power to interfere with an
order of transfer at a later stage if warranted in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
7. In view of the decision in Ajay Gupta (supra), the writ appeal is not
being entertained and is disposed of.
8. The learned Single Judge directed the State counsel to file affidavit
within two weeks and as such, the order of the learned Single Judge shall
be complied with on or before 03.02.2022, if not already filed. Having
regard to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Registry is
now directed to list the case before the appropriate Bench on 08.02.2022.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (N.K. Chandravanshi)
Chief Justice Judge
Brijmohan
