HK3H COUrerOF CHHATTISeARHAT Bll.ASMrfR W.P. (S) No. 3421 of20(»7 Petitioner Ramswaroop Patet S/o Shri Jaylal Pats!, Age-41 years, Patwari at Haika No. 11, Tahsii-Gurur, District- Durg (C.G.) Respondents Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh Through-The Secretary, Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2) Under Secreteiry, Revenue Dqaartment, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 3) CoUector, Durg (C.G.) 4) Sohan Lal SonbhaAa, Pahvari at Halka No. 3, Tahsil-Bemrtara, District-Durg (C.G.) WRtT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 W THE CCWSTmjTION OF iNmA (SB; Hon'bte Mr. Justice Satjsh K. Agnihotri) Shri Ajay ShriTOStava, Advocate for tt»petiUoner, Shri Yashwant Sit^h Thakur, Govi. ^ivocate for fiie ti^pondents No. 1 to 3/State. ORD_6A (Passed on th.'s 1?m day ofJuly, 2007} The petttioner, who is worldng as Patwari at Patwari Halka Ne. 11, Tahsil-Gurur, has been transferred to Patwari Hatl®No. 3, Tahsil-Bemetara by the order dated 13.6.2007 (Annexure P/1). The petltioner questions the legatity and valklity of the jmpugned order ctated 13.6.2007, as being contraiy to the transfer poticy 2006-2007 (Annexure P/4). According to teamed counsel appearing for the pelitk»>er, there was cpmplete ban on transfers, but (n special cases, transfer could be made in puMic interest and in adminis&atiw exigency in co-ordination twth the Chief Minister through the Chief Secretary. Leamed counsel further subrote ttiat the order has to speclfy that the same has been effected after -.^ -_. ^.—.. ¥- B/- ^) tatdr®approwl in co-ordination wtth the ChW Mlnister. In the present case, no approval in co-ordlnatton with Uie Chief Minister has been obtained. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, teamed Govt Advecate appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3 submBs that Wwugfn the Collector has power to trarBfer the peWoner, but the transfer policy has not been followed, as no approval in co-ordination with the Chief Miniater has been cAtained; In view of categoricat statement made by leamed counset appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3, the tran^er OKter being in vjolation of the transfer policy, which is issued in the name of the Govemor under Articte 166 of the Constttutiwi of India, is bad and deserves to be quashed in rsspect et the petttjoner. In normal circumstances, this Court has tiffrited JtiriMlJetion to intertere in transfer matters, however, in esse of proved malafide, non-competance of the authority passing the transfer order and order not being in confonnity with the poirey, ru^ and regulations, this Court, as in the present ease, is competent to interfere wittt the sanw. Thus, the impugned order dated 13.6.2007 (Annexure P/1). in respect of the petitioner, is quadied. The writ petiBon is aitowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- ; Satish K.Agnihotri Judge