Bombay High Court
Mr. Gorakhnath Mall vs Director General, Railway Protection ... on 14 January, 2021
Bench: K.K. Tated, R.I. Chagla
18-wpst-30161-2019.doc
jsn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Jitendra Digitally signed
by Jitendra S. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
S. Nijasure
Date: 2021.01.16
Nijasure 14:12:53 +0530
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.30161 OF 2019
Gorakhnath Mall ...Petitioner
Versus
Director General (RPF) & Ors. ...Respondents
----------
Mr. Dishant Chitalia i/b. Enlight Juris for the Petitioner.
Ms. Mohini Chougule, i/b. Suresh Kumar for the Respondents.
----------
CORAM : K.K. TATED &
R.I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 14 January 2021
ORDER :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondents submits that, this Court by an order dated 5th March, 2020 directed them to produce the original fle containing the note regarding administrative exigency. She submits that suddenly the matter appeared on board and hence requires some time to produce the original documents.
1/3
18-wpst-30161-2019.doc
3. During the course of the argument, this Court noticed the order dated 11th July, 2019 passed by the Director General transferring the Petitioner to South Central Railway at Secunderabad on administrative ground. The main contention of the Petitioner is that as per the Rule 91.2 of Railway Protection Force Rules 1987, the transfer order from one zone to other zone can only be passed by Principal Chief Security Commissioner concerned after obtaining the concurrence of the Director General. The said rule reads thus:-
91.2 Enrolled members of the Force :-
All inter-zonal railway transfers of the enrolled members of the Force shall be ordered by the Principal Chief Security Commissioner concerned after obtaining the concurrence of the Director General.
4. It is to be noted that the transfer order dated 11th July, 2019 was passed by the Director General as per Para 17 of the Directive 32 (revised). Paragraph 17 of those directives reads as under:-
17. Power to relax Power to relax all or any of the above instructions / guidelines shall vest only with DG/RPF.
5. It seems that the Director General passed the said transfer order on the basis of paragraph 17 of the directives 17 (revised).
6. Considering these facts, the learned Counsel for the 2/3 18-wpst-30161-2019.doc Petitioners submits that, he also requires some time to take instructions from his client that whether he is willing to make appropriate representation for cancellation of the said transfer order to the concerned authority. The concerned authority shall then decide the same on its own merits. Hence by consent of the both the parties, matter to appear on board on 1st February, 2021.
[R.I. CHAGLA J.] [K.K. TATED, J.]
3/3