1 CGHC010333082026 2026:CGHC:39907 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6367 of 2026 Liyakat Ansari S/o Md. Tafajul Aged About 57 Years Presently Working As Inspector (G D), Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force, 38th Battalion, I.T.B.P., Kharora Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi 110001 2 - Director General Indo Tibetan Border Police Force, I.T.B.P. Headquarters, Block No. 2, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003 3 - Inspector General/ Commanding Officer 38th Battalion, I.T.B.P., Kharora, Raipur Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sweta Rai, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGI Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 09.09.2026 1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the orders dated 13.07.2026, 17.07.2026 and 04.08.2026 (Annexure-P/1), whereby his representation, online grievance and appeal, respectively, have been rejected. RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.09.15 10:31:13 +0530 2 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on instructions, would submit that the Transfer Policy, annexed by the petitioner as Standing Order No. 03/2023 dated 10.02.2023, issued by the Directorate General, ITB Police, contains a provision governing the disposal of representations. She would submit that Clause-6 thereof provides that a force personnel is required to submit a representation within a period of 10 days from the date of issuance of the transfer order. However, the petitioner submitted his representation online only on 17.07.2026, beyond the prescribed period. It is, therefore, submitted that the representation of the petitioner was rightly rejected, which order is under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. In view of the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the respondent and the provisions contained in Clause-6 of Standing Order No. 03/2023 dated 10.02.2023, it is evident that the petitioner was required to submit his representation within a period of 10 days from the date of issuance of the transfer order. However, the petitioner submitted his representation online only on 17.07.2026, beyond the prescribed period. 4. Nothing has been demonstrated by the petitioner to show that the rejection of his representation was contrary to the aforesaid provision or otherwise calls for interference by this Court. No infirmity or illegality is found in the orders impugned warranting interference by this Court. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul