Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jahar Singh Bundela vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 June, 2021
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1 WP-7695-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-7695-2021
(JAHAR SINGH BUNDELA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 21-06-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Rajmani Mishra, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ankit Agrawal, Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Shri B.J. Chourasiya, counsel for respondent No.5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on the question of admission and interim relief.
By the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 17.03.2021 (Annexure-P/1) whereby he has been directed to be transferred from Gram Panchayat-Ragauli, Janpad Panchayat-Bijawar, District-Chhatarpur, to Gram Panchayat-Nandgaon Bantan, Janpad Panchayat-Bijawar, District-Chhatarpur, and in his place, respondent No.5 has been brought.
The challenge is basically made on the ground that the impugned transfer order has been issued with mala fide intention as transfer of the petitioner is purely on political motivation as one of the local leader of the ruling party is biased against the petitioner and as such, he made a request to the concerned Minister of the Department asking the petitioner to be transferred to some other Gram Panchayat. The said letter of local leader is also available on record as Annexure-P/5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that transfer of the petitioner is at the instance of a political person that too in a circumstance when the controlling authority of the petitioner has 2 WP-7695-2021 appreciated his working and requested that he be allowed to continue at the present Gram Panchayat. He further submits that the petitioner has not completed the normal tenure of three years at the present place of posting and if transfer has been made in the circumstance existing or on the basis of the complaint, if any made against the petitioner, then he should have been granted an opportunity to be heard and to put-up his stand before the authority.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2009) 2 SCC 592 parties being Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India & Others and ILR (2011) MP 1720 parties being K.S. Verma Vs. State of M.P. & Others.
Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State submits that transfer by political intervention and by a local political leader has not been considered to be illegal in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2007) 8 SCC 150 parties being Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others. He further submits that the order of transfer has not been issued on the basis of the complaint and the letter dated 19.11.2020 is of the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat-Bijawar, but that is not the reason for transferring the petitioner as the order impugned has been issued on 17.03.2021. He submits that in a matter of transfer, interference is not permissible.
Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has supported the submissions made by learned Government Advocate for the State and has apprised this Court that respondent No.5 has already joined in place of the petitioner and complied with the order of transfer.
3 WP-7695-2021 The petitioner has already impleaded a private person as party alleging mala fide and prima facie, it appears that request for transferring the petitioner has been made by a local political leader. In the case relied upon by learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State, it is held that if a recommendation is made by a local MLA, then nothing illegal. But, here it is a local leader, therefore, according to the petitioner, such recommendation and transfer on that recommendation is illegal.
Considering the above, the allegation of mala fide cannot be thrown out at the threshold that too when documents substantiating that allegation are on record and the person against whom mala fide is alleged, is also before the Court.
In view of the above, let notices be issued to respondents No.1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7, on payment of process-fee within a period of seven days by RAD mode.
No notice is required to be issued to respondent No.5 as he is being represented by a counsel.
By way of interim measure, it is directed that operation of the impugned order dated 17.03.2021 (Annexure-P/1) shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.
It is further directed that since the petitioner has already been granted interim protection vide order dated 05.04.2021 and he has not joined at the transferred place, therefore, he should be allowed to continue at Gram Panchayat-Ragauli, Janpad Panchayat-Bijawar, till the next date of hearing.
Notices be made returnable within six weeks. Certified Copy as per rules.
4 WP-7695-2021 (SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Prachi Digitally signed by PRACHI PANDEY Date: 2021.06.24 17:42:59 +05'30'