Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 311 (UTT)

RANBIR SINGH CHAUHAN v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2016-07-04

K.M.JOSEPH, V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, C.J. (Oral) Appellant is the writ petitioner. He was transferred from District Uttarkashi to District Dehradun apparently on medical grounds by order dated 28.11.2015. The second respondent Commissioner, Garhwal Region passed the order, which is impugned in the writ petition, dated 10.06.2016 and he was asked to rejoin at Uttarkashi. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the matter as follows: “4. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer only to the extent that representation dated 14.06.2016, which is pending before respondent No. 2-Commissioner, Garhwal Division, District Pauri Garhwal, be decided expeditiously. 5. In view thereof, in case, the petitioner joins at Uttarkashi within a week from today and gives the proof of his joining at Uttarkashi to the authority concerned i.e. respondent No. 2 – Commissioner, Garhwal Division, District Pauri Garhwal, the pending representation of the petitioner shall be decided within a period of three weeks thereafter. It is expected that the Commissioner will not give regard to the dismissal of this writ petition in-limine by this court, as that is being done on entirely different grounds. The Commissioner shall examine as to whether under the circumstances the cancellation of petitioner’s transfer order was necessary, as this aspect has not been elaborated by the Commissioner in the impugned order. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed. No order as to costs.” 2. We heard Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Even though, learned counsel for the appellant would attempt to argue the matter on merits, we notice what is stated in paragraph-4 of the impugned judgment and, therefore, we would not permit him to elaborate more. 4. Then, he would submit that the direction that he must join at Uttarkashi within a week for the representation to be considered may not be given effect to. 5. We would think that the interest of justice requires vacating of the portion of the judgment directing that the appellant must join at Uttarkashi for the representation to be considered. Accordingly, the condition that the appellant must join at Uttarkashi so that the representation be considered will stand vacated. We further make it clear that the representation will be decided within ten days from today. Accordingly, the condition that the appellant must join at Uttarkashi so that the representation be considered will stand vacated. We further make it clear that the representation will be decided within ten days from today. The judgment of the learned Single Judge will stand modified as aforesaid. 6. Subject to the same, the Appeal will stand disposed of.