1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3700 OF 2010 (SUNIL SHREEKRUSHNA FOKMARE...VS.. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. P.S.Wathore, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Ambrish Joshi, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 3. CORAM : V.C.DAGA & A.B.CHAUDHARI , JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 22, 2010. Heard. 2. This petition is directed against order dated 20th January, 2010 passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Original Application No. 458 of 2009 wherein the order of transfer dated 24th June, 2009 was challenged by the petitioner. The said challenge is turned down by the Tribunal in the following words. : “4] Having considered the submissions made by the parties and the oral arguments of learned counsel for the applicant and learned P.O., I find that the required prior approval of the next higher authority has been duly obtained by the transferring authority before carrying out the impugned order which is a premature transfer. This being so, the impugned transfer cannot be challenged on the ground of any legal infirmity. As regards the allegations of external pressure. I find that the transfer has been carried out by respondent No.3 after duly considering the report received from the superior authority of the applicant and no fault could be found with such routine administrative action taken by respondent No.3. In the circumstances, I am 2 convinced that there is no merit in the O.A. filed by the applicant and the same is liable for dismissal. It is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.” 3. We are taken through the order and other relevant documents. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Arvind Dattatraya Dhande Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in Vol. 27 Supreme Court Service Rulings, page 101 and Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India & oth, reported in AIR 2009 SC 1399. The law laid down in those cases is not in dispute. However, here is the case wherein the person was transferred after completing 2½ years of service at one station. He submits that his transfer is malafide transfer. However, no specific allegations of malafides against any of the officer were made in the original application before the Tribunal. 4. On the last date of hearing we had directed the petitioner to report with direction to the respondent State Government to allow the petitioner to resume the duties. However, the petitioner failed to report. He is away from duty for past more than 1 ½ years. 5. In these circumstances, considering the reasoned order passed by the Tribunal and conduct of the petitioner, this is not a fit case for exercise of writ jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the view taken by the Tribunal is reasonable and possible view. No illegality or perversity was pointed out by the petitioner in the order passed by the learned Tribunal, during the course of hearing. 3 6. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE RR..