1 2026:CGHC:17563 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3325 of 2026 1 - Pramod Kumar Jangde S/o Shiv Prasad Jangde, Aged About 40 Years Occupation- Manager (Administration) Head Quarter- District Office Ambikapur District Sarguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Directorate Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chairman, Chhattisgarh State, Civil Supples Corporation Limited, Headquarter Nawa Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State, Civil Supplies Corporation, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Harsh Verma, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G, For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.04.21 18:28:50 +0530 2 Order on Board 17/04/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1. That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 20.02.2026 passed by respondent No.2 in t he interest of justice, (Annexure P-1), as well as the last part of Annexure-P/2 order dated 13.03.2026. 10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court further pleased to grant such other relief(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. Objection is raised by counsel for the respondent No.3 with regard to maintainability of writ petition on the ground that after the impugned order of transfer 20.02.2026, petitioner has been put under suspension vide order dated 13.03.2005 and the challenge made to the order of suspension is in WPS No.3160/2026 is pending consideration. 3. After arguing for some time the counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition at this stage with liberty to revive the same if any exigency arises in future. He also submits that in the meantime he will pursue a representation. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents have not opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 3 5. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Ravi Mandavi