Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shamima Begum vs The State Of Mp on 18 July, 2019
1 WP-13493-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-13493-2019
(SHAMIMA BEGUM Vs THE STATE OF MP)
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 18-07-2019
Shri Shailendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Chaturvedi, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Shri Ayur Jain, learned counsel for the proposed intervener and has moved an application (IA No.8636/2019) for seeking permission to intervene in the matter.
Heard on the question of admission.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on earlier occasion petitioner was transferred thrice and against every order of transfer she filed petition before this Court and an interim order was also granted in her favour. He further submits that all those petitions are still pending for final adjudication. He submits that despite interim order granted by this Court in all the three petitions still respondents have issued an order dated 06.07.2019 (Annexure P/15); whereby petitioner is again directed to be transferred from Borikhurd to Semralodhi. This order is contrary to law and virtually amounts to contempt on the part of the authority as in violation of the interim order granted by this Court the order impugned has been issued.
Per contra, Shri Praveen Chaturvedi, learned Govt. submits that the impugned order of transfer is not in pursuant to earlier transfer order and as such there is no violation of interim order granted by this Court. He further submits that there were certain complaints against the petitioner and on the basis of those complaints impugned order has been issued. He further submits that order impugned is a routine transfer because it is not an order issued in isolation; whereas there were other Secretaries have also been transferred from one place to another.
The intervener has also submitted that being a Sarpanch he has made Digitally signed by NEERAJ SARVATE Date: 19/07/2019 19:04:52 2 WP-13493-2019 several complaints against the working of the petitioner and as such his transfer is proper. However, the application of intervention is yet to be allowed, therefore, on the basis of contention raised by the petitioner and also the submissions made by respondents/State notices are required to be issued. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to pay the process fee within seven days for issuance of notice to the respondents by ordinary as well as RAD mode.
By way of interim measure, the operation of the order impugned in respect of the petitioner shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.
This petition be also linked along with W.P. No.14338/2017, W.P. No.13894/2018 and W.P. No.20226/2018.
Learned counsel for the respondents/State is also directed to verify whether in all those petitions reply has been filed or not. If not, then they may file reply in all those petitions within a period of six weeks.
Counsel for the petitioner is also directed to submit reply to the application of intervention, if he so advised.
List this matter immediately after six weeks.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE ns Digitally signed by NEERAJ SARVATE Date: 19/07/2019 19:04:52