: 1 : cwp-3622-11=.doc USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3622 OF 2011 Jotiram Nana Jathar .. Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ......... Mr. P.D. Dalvi a/w. Mr. Vinod Jadhav for petitioner Mr. V.S. Gokhale, A.G.P. for respondent State ......... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATE : 10th JUNE 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. This petition takes exception to the decision of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai dated 11th April, 2011 in Original Application No.678 of 2010. The petitioner had challenged the transfer order dated 1st June, 2010 amongst others on the ground that it was passed by the appropriate Authority in breach of the mandate of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Government Servants’ Regulation of Transfers & Prevention of Delays in Discharging of Official Duties Act, 2005. 2. The Tribunal has dismissed the original application on the ground : 2 : cwp-3622-11=.doc that the transfer was at the same headquarters and in that event, no interference was warranted in view of the exposition of this Court in the decision in Writ Petition No. 8898 of 2010. 3. The argument before us is that the Tribunal has completely glossed over the challenge of the petitioner, which was in the context of non-compliance of Section 4 of the said Act. The petitioner may be justified in criticizing the decision of the Tribunal on the ground that it does not advert to the said contention at all. However, after hearing the parties, we would still decline to exercise Writ Jurisdiction and prefer to confirm the operative order passed by the Tribunal of rejecting the Original Application of the petitioner. We would do so having considered the case made out by the respondent in reply affidavit dated 20th September, 2010 filed before the Tribunal, in particular in paragraph 3 and 4 thereof. All relevant details have been furnished in the said affidavit, which clearly indicates that necessary procedure under Section 4 has been fulfilled before resorting to transfer of the petitioner for administrative reasons vide impugned order dated 1st June, 2010. Counsel for the petitioner relying on the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner filed before the Tribunal, would urge that the respondents have failed to substantiate the stand taken in the reply affidavit dated 20th September, 2010. : 3 : cwp-3622-11=.doc 4. We do not find merits in this submission. The rejoinder-affidavit is a vague denial of the assertion made by the respondents in the reply affidavit. The reply affidavit refers to specific facts to justify the necessity to pass such order and about the steps taken by the respondents in compliance of Section 4 of the Act, before issuance of impugned order dated 1st June, 2010. 5. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, no case for interference is made out. Petition dismissed. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.)