C.W.P. No.15258 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.15258 of 2009 Date of Decision.09.03.2010 Manjit Singh ........Petitioner Versus Punjab Mandi Board and others ....Respondents Present: Ms. J.J. Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paramjit Batta, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Puneet Singla, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition challenges the power of the Punjab Mandi Board, the 1st respondent to effect an order of transfer. The petitioner is admittedly the Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner is governed by the Punjab Market Committee Class (III) Service Rules, 1989 and the Appointing Authority as per Rule 6 is the Market Committee itself. The Board is governed by different set of Rules namely Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board Class-III Service Rules, 1989 and the Appointing Authority is the Secretary of the Board. As per Section 18 of the Punjab Agriculture Market Act, the Committee is a body corporate and the extent of control by the C.W.P. No.15258 of 2009 -2- Board is limited only to financial matters relating to the Committee. 2. The issue whether the Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector could be transferred by an order of the Board is not any longer res integra. It has come up before this Court earlier in Roshan Lal Vs. Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board and other in LPA No.1230 of 1992 dated 19.04.1996, which was cited and followed by subsequent Bench of this Court in Gopal Dass Vs. State of Punjab and others in C.W.P. No.14282 of 2004. The very same issue relating to the power of the Board to effect a transfer was dealt with and the transfer made by a President of the Board was quashed as one without jurisdiction. 3. When there were two direct decisions of Division Benches of this Court to which the respondents were also parties, it is incomprehensible as to how the 1st respondent could pass an order of transfer. The respondent is clearly in contempt, but however, I do not hasten to proceed on that basis. 4. The writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- against the 1st respondent. The 4th respondent claims that he has also been transferred by virtue of the impugned order. Having regard to the fact that the impugned order is quashed, the 4th respondent will stand reverted to the post at the place, which he held prior to the order of transfer. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 09, 2010 Pankaj*