Khileshwar Purena vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1312 Chatt

                                    1

                                                                      NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                            WA No. 127 of 2022

Khileshwar Purena S/o Late Shri Gopal Prasad Purena, Aged About 45
Years Occupation Patwari, R/o Patpar, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar
Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh).
                                                              ---- Petitioner
                                 Versus
1.   State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Revenue,
     Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralay, Raipur, District Raipur
     (Chhattisgarh).
2.   The Chief Electoral Officer Chhattisgarh, Shastri Chowk, Old
     Mantralay, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3.   The Collector, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
4.   The District Election Officer, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara
     Chhattisgarh.
5.   The Sub Divisional Officer Revenue, Bhatapara, District Baloda
     Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
6.   The Tahsildar Cum Assistant Electoral Registration Officer,
     Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
                                                         ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. R.M. Solapurkar, Government Advocate. For Intervenor : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Gautam Chourdiya, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

14.03.2022

Heard Mr. Sushobhit Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. Also

heard Mr. R.M. Solapurkar, learned Government Advocate, appearing for

the respondents and Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel, who

appears for the Intervenor, who has joined in the place of the petitioner.

2. This appeal is presented against an order dated 21.02.2022 passed

by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 7038 of 2021.

3. The petitioner has challenged an order of transfer dated 30.11.2021

after handing over charge, without disclosing the fact that he had already

executed the order of transfer. The petitioner is holding the post of

Patwari and he was appointed by an order dated 12.05.2017 by

Respondent No.5 for performing the revision of electoral roll duty and

other election works as per direction of respondents No. 2 and 4.

4. Contention was advanced, amongst others, that transfer order

issued by respondent No. 5, without obtaining prior permission from the

respondents No. 2 and 4, is arbitrary and not sustainable in law.

5. The learned Single Judge noted that order dated 12.05.2017 was

superseded by an order dated 25.10.2021 and therefore, the contention

advanced to challenge the order of transfer on the ground that he was

working as Supervisor, appointed under Section 13-B(2) of the

Representation of the Peoples Act, 1950, is not available to the petitioner.

In the light of the above, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ

petition.

6. In the first instance, the petitioner had approached this Court after

handing-over the charge on 30.11.2021. That by itself may not disentitle

the petitioner to assail the order of transfer. However, what is significant is

to note is that there is suppression of the aforesaid material fact in the

writ petition. It is also not disputed that the order dated 12.05.2017 has

been superseded by the order dated 25.10.2021.

7. In that view of the matter, we find no good ground to interfere with

the order of the learned Single Judge and, accordingly, the writ appeal is

dismissed. No cost.

                     Sd/-                                     Sd/-
           (Arup Kumar Goswami)                        (Gautam Chourdiya)
                Chief Justice                                Judge




Hem