WP 441/11 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.441/2011 _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Shri A.A. Nimbalkar, Advocate h/f Shri V.D. Salunke, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.K. Kadam, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri D.P. Bakshi, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 4. Shri H.K. Mundhe, Advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM: D.B. BHOSALE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. Date: 24.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 15.6.2009 and the order dated 22.11.2010 passed by respondent no.2. Though in the prayer clause, the date of the order is corrected by hand as 26.7.2010, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact he is challenging the order dated 15.6.2009. He submits that he does not know, who has WP 441/11 2 made this correction by hand in the prayer clause and also in the index. He maintains that the order, which, he is challenging in the writ petition is dated 15.6.2009. Our attention was invited to the order passed by this Court on 21.10.2010 in Writ Petition No.5398/2009 to submit that the petitioner had earlier challenged his transfer order dated 15.6.2009 and that writ petition was dismissed on merits. We have perused the judgment dated 21.10.2010. In Writ Petition No.5398/2009, the petitioner had assailed the order of his transfer dated 15.6.2009 issued by respondent no.2, transferring him from Nagar Parishad, Jalna, to Chief Engineer, Divisional Department, Aurangabad. The very same order is challenged in the present writ petition. From perusal of the judgment dated 21.10.2010, it is clear that after dismissal of the writ petition, a request was made on behalf of the petitioner seeking direction to respondent no.2 to consider his WP 441/11 3 representations. The Court, while parting, made such observations. In view thereof, the respondent no.2 after considering the petitioner’s representations issued letter dated 21.11.2010 informing the petitioner that his request, made in the representations, is rejected. In our opinion, having regard the judgment dated 21.10.2010, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge his order of transfer dated 15.6.2009. Rejection of the representation also, in our opinion, in the facts of this case, would not give fresh cause of action to the petitioner to once again challenge his transfer. In the circumstances, the petition is dismissed. (M.T. Joshi, J.) (D.B. Bhosale, J.) Dt/- 24.03.2011 ndk/c243112