CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Khileshwar Purena vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 14 March 2022 · Citation: (2022) 03 CHH CK 0034

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ · Gautam Chourdiya, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Representation Of The Peoples Act, 1950 — Section 13B(2)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Appeal No. 127 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 335 words
1.

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The learned Single Judge noted that order dated 12.05.2017 was superseded by an order dated 25.10.2021 and therefore, the contention advanced to challenge the order of transfer on the ground that he was working as Supervisor,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 It is also not disputed that the order dated 12.05.2017 has been superseded by the order dated 25.10.2021.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.