1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PEITITON NO.1646 of 2010 Sanjay P.Tekale ..vs.. The State of Mah. and ors. =-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.Firdos Mirza Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.Fulzele, AGP for resp.no.1 to 4. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 24, 2010. Heard Advocate Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Fulzele, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 4. I find that order impugned in the present writ petition is on the basis of Inspection conducted on 24/11/2009 and it has nothing to do with the earlier orders passed by this court on 11/11/2009 in Writ Petition No.2960 of 2009 and 3075 of 2009. Advocate Mirza has, however, pointed out that respondent no.5 is harassing the petitioner by consistently passing orders in breach of principles of natural justice and in undue haste. He has urged that in Writ Petition Nos.360/2010 and 361 of 2010 on 23rd February, 2010, this court has made some 2 observations about this conduct and imposed costs. He has also invited attention of the court to stand that though the petitioner deposited the necessary purchase money for food grains quota in the month of October, 2009, quota for November, 2009 was not released and hence there could not be any entry in stock register. Learned AGP has pointed out that the by impugned order, the matter was remanded back for fresh order. The petitioner can file reply before the said authority and after hearing the petitioner, orders in accordance with law will be passed. Advocate Mirza has requested the court to transfer the proceedings from respondent no.5 to any other Officer of equivalent rank. The learned AGP is opposing this request. In this situation, in the light of grievance made, I find it appropriate to leave this issue for consideration of Administrative Authority i.e. respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 shall look into the matter and if it is convinced, shall transfer the enqiury against the petitioner to any other Officer of equivalent rank. The said authority shall give petitioner opportunity to file his reply in the matter and after his reply is received shall extend an opportunity of hearing and thereafter shall proceed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. This procedure shall be completed as early as possible and in any case by 31st of December, 2010. It is made clear that this court has not made any 3 other observations on merits on the controversy and authority undertaking same shall decide the issues in accordance with material coming on record before it, uninfluenced by earlier orders in this matter. With these observations and directions, writ petition is partly allowed. No costs. The petitioner to appear before respondent no.2 in the matter and make request for transfer on 10th October, 2010 by moving appropriate application. The said authority shall thereafter keep in mind the time scheduled and pass appropriate orders as early as possible. Steno copy of this order be supplied to the parties. JUDGE chute