1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2893 OF 2010 (Ravindra Bhagwatrao Manatkar vs. Additional Commissioner, Amravati & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. OCTOBER 04, 2010. This Court has already issued notice for final disposal. Heard Shri Chopde, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Deshpande, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2. Nobody is appearing for respondent No. 3, though she is served. The perusal of impugned order dated 04.01.2010 passed by Respondent No. 1 shows that merely because of allegations made by Respondent No. 3 against Respondent No. 2, the order dated 21.10.2009 passed by Respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioner is directed to be reviewed by some other authority. Shri Chopde, learned counsel has contended that the order dated 21.10.2009 is passed after hearing all concerned and could have been questioned before the Competent authority in accordance with law. The permission to review and transfer order granted simultaneously in the impugned order is without jurisdiction. He has further stated that the order has been passed without hearing the petitioner. Mrs. Deshpande, learned AGP has supported 2 the impugned order. According to her, Respondent No. 3 has made allegations of bias and nepotism and other irregularities against Respondent No. 2. She has also threatened the authority with fast unto death and hence Respondent No. 1 thought it proper to direct review and to transfer the matter. Prima facie it appears that the order dated 21.10.2009 has been passed by Respondent No. 1 after hearing the counsel for Respondent No. 3 also. The provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code permit Respondent No. 3 to challenge that order further, if she is aggrieved. The allegations of nepotism or bias as levelled are not sufficient to order administrative transfer and that too by quashing and setting aside said order dated 21.10.2009. Respondent No. 1 has indirectly asked another officer to review order dated 21.10.2009 without recording any reasons therefor. Such a review is legally not sustainable. Hence, said direction dated 04.01.2010 issued by Respondent No. 1 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 3 is given liberty to challenge the impugned order dated 21.10.2009 in accordance with law on all grounds as are available to her in the matter. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.