1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4286 OF 2010 Mrs.Deepa w/o Yogesh Sikka .. Petitioner Versus The Union of India, Through the Ministry of Human Resources (Department of School Education & Literacy), Government of India, Shashtri Bhavan, New Delhi and ors. ..Respondents Mr.V.D.Sapkal, Advocate for petitioner Mr.Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General for respondents CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 6th May 2010 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which takes exception to an order dated 29.4.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai, in Original Application No.353 of 2010 declining to entertain the plea of the petitioner herein in respect of grant of stay to the order by which the petitioner herein came to be transferred from Bhusawal to Gadchiroli. The date of the impugned order is 24.12.2009 and by virtue of the recitals in the said order, the petitioner stood released on 24.12.2009. 2. A prayer for interim relief i.e. stay to the impugned order was 2 advanced before the Tribunal which consisted of two grounds, (i) that on account of the complaint filed by the petitioner herein complaining of sexual harassment, the order of transfer has been issued which order on the face of it is a mala fide and colourable exercise of power; (ii) that the authority who has ordered the transfer of the petitioner is not competent in law to do so. 3. The Tribunal upon considering the rival contentions of the parties, at paragraph 6 of the order has recorded a finding that the petitioner herein had failed to make out any prima facie case for grant of the interim relief. According to us, since the original application is pending and these would be the grounds which would be urged by the present petitioner before the Tribunal and which grounds would be considered by the Tribunal on its merits, we refrain from making any observations in respect of the merits of the contentions advanced by the petitioner as any observations made by us touching the merits of the matter is likely to be prejudicially affect the pending original application. 4. Suffice it to say that since the Tribunal has directed the listing of the matter on 29.6.2010, we direct the Tribunal to decide the original application on merits, preferably on the same day or on any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, but as expeditiously as possible keeping in mind the hardships which the petitioner claims to be suffering on account of her transfer from Bhusawal 3 to Gadchiroli. Mr.Alok Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents assures us that the respondents would ensure that the record is made available before the Tribunal on 29.6.2010 and no adjournment would be sought by the respondents for production of the record. 5. We, accordingly, dismiss the petition summarily with the directions to the Tribunal to decide the application on merits, preferably on 29.6.2010 or on any day subsequent thereto, but as expeditiously as possible. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. 6. Copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar of this Court be provided to the learned Counsel for the parties to act upon. ( S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/4286.10wp)