(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5337 OF 2010 Mohammad Hanif Khan Mohd. Wahed Khan, Age : 53 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Pawar Nagar, Ausa, Taluka : Ausa, District : Latur. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, Through Chief Engineer, Mill Corner, Old Power House, Aurangabad. 2. Executive Engineer for Urban and Rural Division, Latur, Sonawane Building, Opp. Yeshwantrao Complex, Latur. 3. Jagdish Venkatrao Mane, Junior Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, 132 KV Killari, Taluka : Ausa, District : Latur. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. S.P. Urgunde, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.V. Ghuge, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. M.G. Ghode, Advocate, for respondent no.3. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges his transfer from Ausa in Latur District, to Tamsa in Nanded District. 2. Mr. S.P. Urgunde, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the transfer effected is a midterm transfer and without any valid reasons. It is submitted that the petitioner is on the verge of retirement and, therefore, ought not to have been transferred at the fag end of his service. It is further submitted that though the initial stand of the respondents is that the transfer is effected on administrative grounds, in the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.1, certain allegations of misconduct are made against the petitioner. (3) 3. The transfer is an incident of service. No doubt, that certain acts of the petitioner have been mentioned in the affidavit in reply. However, it is to be noted that said averments have been invited by the petitioner himself. Undisputedly, from the perusal of the order, it would reveal that the order is effected on the ground of administrative exigencies. 4. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ( R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp5337