1 WP 8904.2010- (J) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8904 OF 2010 Bhikaji Sakharam Muley Age : 51 Yrs., Occ. Service, R/o : Govind Nagar, Sangamner, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. : Ahmednagar. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development & Fisheries Department, M.S. Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Commissioner of Agriculture, Maharashtra State, Pune. 3. The Taluka Agriculture Officer Akole, Tq. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar. 4. Namdeo S/o Gopala Dhande Age : 42 Yrs., Occ. Service, (Serving as Circle Agriculture Officer Rajur, Tq. kole) R/o : At and Post Dhumalwadi, Tq. Akole, Dist. Ahmednagar. .... RESPONDENTS 2 WP 8904.2010- (J) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. V.D.Hon, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V.D.Godbharle, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate for Resp. No. 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 12/01/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER – S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] 1. Vide the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the Order dated 20/9/2010 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad Bench, [ For short, ‘ the Tribunal ’ ] thereby allowing the Original Application No. 748 of 2010 filed by the present respondent no. 4. 2. Mr. Hon, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal while passing the impugned Judgment has not considered the relevant material placed before it. According to the learned counsel, the special reasons have been properly considered at the time of issuing transfer order, but the Tribunal has not considered the same. 3. Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, learned counsel submits that the said transfer order was clearly in defiance with the provisions of the Act. In such circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the said Original Application. 3 WP 8904.2010- (J) 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, we have gone through the Judgment. The Tribunal has considered all the relevant material and the fact that it was mid term transfer and no special case was made out nor any reasons were recorded while effectuating mid term transfer. 5. The view taken by the Tribunal is a possible and plausible view. In such circumstances, no interference is called for. As such, the present Writ Petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J. ] knp/WP 8904.2010