1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8447 OF 2009 Shri Dadabhau N. Kale ...Petitioner. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Adv. with N.V.Bandiwadekar, advs. For the Petitioner. Mr.V.S.Masurkar, Govt. Pleader For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni with Mr.A.P. Kulkarni, advs. for the Respondent No.3. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 17th November , 2009 P.C. 1 Rule. Heard forthwith. 2 Petitioner approached this Court against the order of MAT whereby transfer by the respondent no.1 is set aside consequently affects the petitioner’s transfer. 3 Petitioner was transferred by G.R. Dated 5th August, 2009 as District Special Auditor Co-operative Societies Class I, Kolhapur in the vacancy occasioned by the transfer of the respondent no.3 Shri Sanjay U. Gite. Respondent no.3 challenged the transfer by filing Original 2 Application. The learned Tribunal on perusal of the order of transfer held that there was compliance with the requirements of next higher transferring authority the Chief Minister. In the instant case, however, found that the reasons recorded were no reasons and consequently, set aside the order of transfer. The State of Maharashtra has enacted the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act 2005 (which hereinafter shall be referred to as the ‘Act’). Sections 4 and 5 confers power of transfer of a Government Servant before completion of his tenure of post, in special cases, after recording reasons in writing and with the prior approval of the immediate superiors. In the instant case, from the file noting, the learned Tribunal has noted that there was noting to the effect that the transfers were desired by the office of the Minister and certain elected representatives. The learned Tribunal held that this to be no reason. Before the Tribunal, reply was filed on behalf of the State setting out the record of the service. 4 The question before us is whether the request of the Minister- in-Charge of the department and elected representatives can be said to be no reasons. 5 In our opinion, in any parliamentary form of democracy 3 minister-in-charge does normally have a say in running of his department. Representations by elected representative cannot be said to be totally extraneous as long as they are not motivated. We can understand if the reasons were extraneous or the transfer is malafide or arbitrary. In such event, Courts do on occasion interfere with the order of the transfer. 6 In the instant case, considering the record before the Tribunal and the noting on the file, it can not be said that there were no reasons. In our opinion, therefore, the learned Tribunal misdirected itself in law in interfering with the order of transfer. For the aforesaid reasons, impugned order is set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)