Prem Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1039760
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnJun-19-2013
AppellantPrem Kumar Mishra
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
w.a.no.1227/2011 (prem kumar mishra versus the state of m.p.& ors.) 19.06.2013 shri raghuvansh prasad mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. shri kumaresh pathak, learned deputy advocate general for the respondents-state. this appeal is directed against the order dated 12-10-2011 passed in w.p.no.13841/2011 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant against the order of his transfer was dismissed, however, with the liberty to the appellant to represent before the competent authority and seek indulgence of the authority. learned counsel for the appellant though tried to assail the aforesaid order on the ground that only to accommodate the respondent no.5 the appellant was transferred, but we are not satisfied with the aforesaid contention. the writ petition was dismissed on 12-10-2011 with the aforesaid liberty and a period of near about 1 ½ years have elapsed since then. in the meantime, the appellant must have joined at the transferred place. in view of the aforesaid circumstances, no interference is called for in the impugned order and the writ appeal is found without merits. accordingly, it is dismissed. however, at the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, liberty is granted to the appellant to represent his case before the competent authority, who shall consider the case of the appellant, if such a representation is filed. no order as to costs. (k.k.lahoti) (subhash kakade) acting chief justice judge ac.
Judgment:

W.A.No.1227/2011 (Prem Kumar Mishra versus The State of M.P.& Ors.) 19.06.2013 Shri Raghuvansh Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents-State.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 12-10-2011 passed in W.P.No.13841/2011 by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant against the order of his transfer was dismissed, however, with the liberty to the appellant to represent before the competent authority and seek indulgence of the authority.

Learned counsel for the appellant though tried to assail the aforesaid order on the ground that only to accommodate the respondent No.5 the appellant was transferred, but we are not satisfied with the aforesaid contention.

The writ petition was dismissed on 12-10-2011 with the aforesaid liberty and a period of near about 1 ½ years have elapsed since then.

In the meantime, the appellant must have joined at the transferred place.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, no interference is called for in the impugned order and the writ appeal is found without merits.

Accordingly, it is dismissed.

However, at the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, liberty is granted to the appellant to represent his case before the competent authority, who shall consider the case of the appellant, if such a representation is filed.

No order as to costs.

(K.K.Lahoti) (Subhash Kakade) Acting Chief Justice Judge ac.