1 2025:CGHC:43300 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4694 of 2023 Janardan Singh S/o Late Shri Baijnath Singh Aged About 53 Years R/o Q. No. -1/47 Jail Line Raipur, Police Station - Ganj, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Under Secretary State Of Chhattisgarh, Home (Jail) Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Director General Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Head Quarter - Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 26.08.2025 1 The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.26 18:27:35 +0530 2 pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents for it's kind perusal; 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/order/direction and quash the order dated 04.07.2023 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent no.2; 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/order/direction and quash the order dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P/4) issued by the respondent no.2 to the extent the petitioner has been transferred from Central Jail Raipur (C.G.) to Central Jail Bilaspur (C.G.); and 10.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/order/direction commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to join at Central Jail Raipur (C.G.); 10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P/4) and 04.07.2023 (Annexure P/1), whereby he was transferred from Central Jail, Raipur (C.G.) to Central Jail, Bilaspur (C.G.), and his representation against the said transfer was rejected. It is contended that the impugned transfer order dated 08.05.2023 was issued without application of mind and in complete disregard of the petitioner’s personal and professional 3 circumstances, rendering the order arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner had filed a detailed representation (Annexure P/2) highlighting undue hardship and other relevant grounds, which was summarily rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 04.07.2023 without assigning any reason, further demonstrating arbitrariness and non-compliance with the principles of administrative fairness. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner has again been transferred to a different place of posting. In view of this subsequent development, the relief claimed in the present petition has, by efflux of time, become infructuous. 3 From perusal of the record, it seems that vide order dated 17.07.2023, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner to the effect that “there shall be a stay of the effect and operation of the order of transfer dated 08.05.2023 Annexure P-4 and the subsequent rejection of the representation dated 04.07.2023 Annexure P-1 till the next date of hearing.” 4 Considering the matter in its entirety, it appears that the petitioner was granted interim protection vide order dated 17.07.2023 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, whereby the effect and operation of the impugned transfer order dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure P/4) and the subsequent rejection of representation dated 04.07.2023 (Annexure P/1) were stayed till the next date of hearing. 4 5 However, it is evident from the record that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner has again been transferred to a different place of posting. In view of this subsequent development, the relief claimed in the present petition has, by efflux of time, ceased to survive and the matter has been rendered infructuous. 6 Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. It is, however, clarified that the State/respondents shall remain at liberty to pass appropriate orders in respect of the transfer and posting of the petitioner, if administrative exigency so requires, strictly in accordance with law and the applicable rules. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh