^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOA8HAT BIU^PUR W.P. fS) No. 3422 of 2007 Petiffoner Sarita Madharu W/o Mr. D.K. Madhariya, Age-33 yeare, R/o - Subhash Chowk, Bhllai-3, District- Durg (C.G.) Respondents Versus 1) State of ChhatUsgarh Through-The Secretary, Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawai, Raipur(C.G.) 2) Under Secretary, Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 3) CoHector, Duig(C.G.) 4) Ravindra Swamkar, Raiwari at 1-telka No. 33, Tahsll Gunderdehl, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Threugh- Collector, Durg. WRIT PETITION UNOERARnCLE2260F TH6 CONSTITUTKW OF INDIA --- (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnthotri) Shri AJayShrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Govt. AA/oeate for the respwidertts No.1to3/State. ORDER (Passsd on this 1 T^ day of July,2007) 1. The petftioner, whois woridng as Patwari N Patwari Halka No. 26, Tahsil-Durg, has been transfen-ed toPattrari Halka No.34, Tahstt-Batod by the order dated 13.6^007 (Annexur®Pft). The petiUoner questions the legatlty and validity of ttie jmpugned wder dated 13.6.2007, asbelng contowy to the transfer poUcy 2006-2007 (Annexure P/4). According to leamed counsel appeanng torthe petitoner, there was corrylete ban on tranrfeis, bK in speeial cases, (ransfercould be madein pyblic interwt and in administtatiw pxigency in co-ordination wtth ttie Chief Minister throu^i Sie Chief Secretary. Learned counsel further submite that the order has to specify ttat the same has beai effected after taking approval in co-ordination with the Chief Minister. In the y- -^- B/- present case, no appoval in co-onliraErtion vwth the GhW Minister has been obtained. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, leamed Govt Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3 submte ttiat Vhough the Collector has power to transfer the petiUoner, but the transfer policy has not been followed, as no anxoval In co-ordination with tha Chief Minlster has been obtained. In vtew of categorical statement made by teamed counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3, the transfer order being in violatlon of the transfer poliey, which Is issued in tt name of the Govemor under Articte 166 <rf the CsnsflhAKOT of India, is bad and deserves to be quashed in respaet tf ttie petiUoner. In normat cireumslances, this Court has timited jurisdiction to interfere in transfer matters, however, In case of proved malafide, non-competence of the authority pasang thetransfer order and order not being tn conformity with the policy, rules and regulations, this Court, as in the present case, is competent to interfere with the same. Thus, Uie impugned oider dated 13.6.2007 (Annexure P/1), m respect of the petltioner, is quashed. The writ (»ttion Is allowed. No orcter as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnibom r'