(1) WP 1020.2011+2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1020 OF 2011 Upendra Gunwantrao Muley PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1100 OF 2011 Mrs. Pratibha Pradip Ghanekar PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharasthra and ors. RESPONDENTS AND WRIT PETITION NO. 1184 OF 2011 Mrs. Pratibha Pradip Ghanekar PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharasthra and ors. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. R.T. Nagargoje, Advocate for the Petitioner in all Petitions. Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State in all Petitions. Mr. A.S. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.5 in Writ Petition no. 1020 of 2011. Mr. G.D. Kale, Advocate for respondent no.5 in Writ Petition no. 1100 of 2011. Mr. N.R. Solunke, Advocate for respondent no.4 in Writ Petition no. 1184 of 2011. ..... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 10TH MARCH, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. (2) WP 1020.2011+2 Heard Advocate Shri Nagargoje for the petitioners, Shri Deshpande for respondent no.5, Shri Tambe learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Advocate N.R. Solunke for respondent no.4. 2. After hearing respective counsel, it is clear that the arguments were heard by the Officer (respondent no.2) and thereafter he was transferred on 20.1.2011. The next incumbent on that post had not heard the argument and hence on 29.1.2011, he forwarded the matter to earlier incumbent. Earlier incumbent then passed the impugned order dated 12.1.2011. 3. Shri Nagargoje has contended that when records are forwarded to earlier incumbent on 29.1.2011, the earlier incumbent could not have passed orders on 12.1.2011. The learned A.G.P. has filed reply affidavit on behalf of respondent no.2. Shri Deshpande has filed affidavit on behalf of respondent no.5 in Writ Petition no. 1020 of 2011 and Shri G.D. Kale has filed affidavit for respondent no.5 in Writ Petition no. 1100 of 2011. Those affidavits are taken on record. (3) WP 1020.2011+2 4. In view of the document on record dated 29.1.2011 addressed to the earlier incumbent (Shri D.B. Mukne), presently Regional Joint Director (Sugar) (Aurangabad), it is clear that the orders have been passed by earlier incumbent after 29.1.2011 and in order to show that same were passed before handing over charge, the date 12.1.2011 has been placed on it. 5. In view of this clear position emerging on record, it is not necessary for this Court to go into more details at this stage as there are no other allegations of personal nature against the present incumbent or the earlier incumbent and the Officers are not joined by name as parties, it is also not necessary for this Court to record any finding about absence of any malafides on their part. The mistake appear to be bonafide or inadvertent. It is also substantiated by act of said Officer in issuing corrigendum and in correcting the date from 12.1.2011 to 29.1.2011. (4) WP 1020.2011+2 6. In these circumstances, impugned order dated 12.1.2011 passed by respondent no.2 are quashed and set aside. All Writ Petitions are allowed. Present incumbent has to hear the petitioners and pass appropriate orders. Alteration of dates by the earlier incumbent will not render his orders legal and valid. The parties are accordingly directed to appear before respondent no.2 on 29.3.2011 and to abide by his further directions in the matter. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. Sd/- [B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] arp