:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1149 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1149 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1149 OF 2009 The Commissioner, Nashik Municipal Corporation & Anr. ..Petitioners versus Balasaheb Kalu Malode & Anr. ..Respondents AND AND AND WRIT PETITION NO. 1151 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1151 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1151 OF 2009 The Commissioner, Nashik Municipal Corporation & Anr. ..Petitioners versus Ramesh Mogal Jadhav ..Respondents AND AND AND WRIT PETITION NO. 1152 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1152 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1152 OF 2009 The Commissioner, Nashik Municipal Corporation & Anr. ..Petitioners versus Ramdas Bansi Jadhav & Anr. ..Respondents AND AND AND WRIT PETITION NO. 1214 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1214 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1214 OF 2009 The Commissioner, Nashik Municipal Corporation & Anr. ..Petitioners versus Bhaskar R. Gaidhani & Anr. ..Respondents AND AND AND WRIT PETITION NO. 1215 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1215 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1215 OF 2009 The Commissioner, Nashik Municipal Corporation & Anr. ..Petitioners versus :2: Jagannath Kisan Warade & Anr. ..Respondents AND AND AND WRIT PETITION NO. 1234 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1234 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1234 OF 2009 The Commissioner, Nashik Municipal Corporation & Anr. ..Petitioners versus Sahebrao Chintaman Bankar & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. M. L. Patil for the Petitioners in all the petitions. Mr. Girish R. Agrawal for the Respondent No.1 in all the petitions. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 9TH FEBRUARY, 2009 DATE : 9TH FEBRUARY, 2009 DATE : 9TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Rule, returnable forthwith in all the petitions. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner Corporation has challenged the Order of the Industrial Court, Nashik, granting interim relief restraining the petitioners from transferring the respondents in all these petitions from one place to another. The respondents are security guards employed by the Corporation. They were posted on Octroi post for the purposes of security. The Corporation decided to transfer them, :3: upon which they approached the Industrial Court, which has granted the aforesaid interim relief. 3. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioners points out that mainly the learned Industrial Court has interdicted the transfer on the ground that the transfers could not have been made under authority of the Security Officer and also because some guards were shown to have been posted at one place longer than others. 4. Mr. Agarwal, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the Order of the Industrial Court and further submitted that the Authorities have acted arbitrarily and some security guards have been kept in their place of posting for much longer time than others. He further submitted that the security guards have been made to do double duty one at the transferred place and the other at the earlier place. 5. Having considered the matter, it is necessary to accept the contention on behalf of the petitioners that the transfer orders are in accordance with law having regard to Section 69 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, :4: 1949, which reads as follows:- "69. Municipal officers may be empowered to 69. Municipal officers may be empowered to 69. Municipal officers may be empowered to exercise certain of the powers, etc. of the exercise certain of the powers, etc. of the exercise certain of the powers, etc. of the Commissioner or the Transport Manager.- Commissioner or the Transport Manager.- Commissioner or the Transport Manager.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), any of the powers, duties or functions conferred or imposed upon or vested in the Commissioner or the Transport Manager by or under any of the provisions of this Act may be exercised, performed or discharged, under the control of the Commissioner or the Transport Manager, as the case may be, and subject to his revision and to such conditions and limitations, if any, as may be prescribed by rules, or as he shall think fit to prescribe in a manner not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or Rules, by any municipal officer whom the Commissioner or the Transport Manager generally or specially empowers by order in writing in this behalf; and to the extent to which any municipal officer is so empowered the word "Commissioner" and the words "Transport Manager" occurring in any provision in this Act, shall be deemed to include such officer. (2) The Commissioner shall not, except with the prior approval of the Standing Committee, make an order under sub-section (1) affecting his powers, duties or functions under any of the following sections, sub-sections and clauses, namely:- 10(1)(h), 12(1), 18(1), 26(2), 43(2), 43(4), 43(5), 51(2), 67(3)(b), 67(3)(c), 67(3)(d), 71(2), 73, 77, 78(1), 85, 86, 87, 90, 92(2), 94, 95, 121, 122, 125, 126, 130(1), 131(1), 134, 137, 144, 152, 154, 160, 174, 176, 177, 188, 195, 196, 197, 201, 205, 207, 208, 209, 210, 212, 213, 214, 216, 220, 224, 232, 243, 268, 269, 270, 272(2), 273, 274, 275, 275(1), 277, 278, 281, 298, 300, 301, 303, 304, 305, 310, 317, 319, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 363, 364, :5: 371(2), 373, 386(2), 439(3), 439(4), 441, 442, 445, 466, 481 except clause (a) of sub-section (1). (3) The Transport Manager shall not except with the prior approval of the Transport Committee, make an order under sub-section (1) affecting his powers, duties or functions under any of the following provisions, namely:- 43(5), 67(4)(b), 67(4)(c), 71(2), 73, 97, 344, 346, 348, 354, 355, 356, 358, 362, 481 except clause (a) of sub-section (1)." It is clear that the section empowers the Commissioner to delegate his powers to subordinate officer. Mr. Agarwal for the respondents submitted that the delegation of powers by the Commissioner requires approval of the Standing Committee. This is not true in all cases. The Section itself provides for an approval by the Standing Committee with certain powers which are referable to the particular sections mentioned in sub section 2. The respondents have not been able to demonstrate as to how sub section (2) comes into play. I therefore find that the transfers are not without authority in law in view of delegation made by the Commissioner vide a letter dated 23.5.2002. 6. As regards the submission that certain employees have been retained longer on one place and :6: others have been transferred, it is settled law that this is not an absolute and mandatory rule. It is a common experience that several exigencies arise in the course of service, when certain employees are retained longer than the regular period of post, whereas others are transferred at the expiry of such a period. Such transfers do not per se become illegal unless they are shown to be malafide in law or fact. 7. As regards the question of double duty referred to above, there is no evidence at this stage to demonstrate that the guards have been made to work in two posts at the same time. All these questions of facts including the question of malafide can be gone into in the course of final decision of the complaints. The impugned orders suffer from an error of law apparent on the face of record and are liable to be and are hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Rule disposed of in all the petitions. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)