1811wp4402.09.odt 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4402 OF 2009 DR. SATISH ZAMUJI SORTE VS. DR. DEVRAO UDHAORAV KAKDE & 3 OTHERS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr. N. D. Thombre, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. V. Thakre, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. N. W. Sambre, Govt. Pleader for respdts. No. 2 to 4. CORAM: D. D. SINHA & F. M. REIS, JJ. DATED : 18th NOVEMBER, 2009. 1. Heard. 2. The present writ petition is directed against order dated 24/9/2009 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal whereby order of transfer dated 31/7/2009 by which the petitioner came to be transferred from Mumbai to Nagpur and respondent No. 1 from Nagpur to Akola came to be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that apart from the other grounds, the main ground on which the impugned order is called in question is that the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. It is contended that the Tribunal has not given reasonable opportunity of hearing to the 1811wp4402.09.odt 2/4 petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner could not put up his case before the Tribunal and in absence of said opportunity, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. It is therefore contended that on this short ground the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter may kindly be remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the issue afresh. 4. Mr. Sambre, learned Government Pleader has submitted that the State has also challenged the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 24/9/2009 by filing writ petition No. 4946 of 2009 on the ground that order is in violation of principles of natural justice. It is contended that the Tribunal has not given reasonable opportunity of hearing to the State Government before passing the impugned order, and therefore, the order impugned is violative of principles of natural justice though there are other grounds on which the order impugned cannot be sustained in law. 5. Learned Counsel for respondents No. 1, on the other hand, has submitted that though the petitioner as well as the State were served with the notice, however, they failed to appear before the Tribunal and therefore, now they cannot canvass the 1811wp4402.09.odt 3/4 grievance before this Court that they were not given opportunity of hearing by the Tribunal. 6. Considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respective parties. The petitioner as well as the State Government are claiming that they were not given opportunity of hearing by the Tribunal though it is contended by the Counsel for respondent No. 1 that they were served with the notice of hearing. Be that as it may, the fact remains that neither the State nor the petitioner were heard by the Tribunal before passing the impugned order, and therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order and remand Original Application No. 576 of 2009 to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh and decide the same on its own merit by giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties to the original application as early as possible. We grant liberty to the petitioner as well as the respondents to request the Tribunal for fixing the date of hearing. 7. Till the matter is decided by the Tribunal finally, respondent No. 1 be retained at Nagpur and the petitioner be provisionally posted at Mumbai where he was before the order of transfer dated 31/7/2009. 1811wp4402.09.odt 4/4 Both these postings are provisional in nature and subject to decision of the Tribunal. 8. Respondent No. 1 undertakes to withdraw the contempt proceedings. 9. Writ petition disposed of accordingly. 10. Copy of this order duly authenticated be furnished to the parties. JUDGE JUDGE wwl