GIRISH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is working as Joint Collector in Sehore has filed this writ petition challenging the order Annexure P-9 dated 09-01-2012, by which the petitioner has been transferred from Sehore to Chhatarpur. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on 3 counts. First ground is that the petitioner has been transferred on about 11 occasions during his service of about 11 years and therefore, the transfer amounts to frequent transfer. Second ground canvassed is that the petitioner in his capacity as Joint Collector of Sehore had taken steps for curbing the illegal mining activities in the district . He has registered various cases with regard to illegal mining and use of explosive unauthorizedly in the district by the Mining Mafia and it is because of this action of the petitioner that on political consideration, he is transferred . The third ground canvassed is that a note sheet has been prepared by the Minister concerned with regard to the aforesaid activities and on the basis of this note sheet, the petitioner has been transferred.

(2.) Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Collector on 01-07-1996 and between the year 2001 to the year 2011 on more than 11 occasions the petitioner has been transferred from one place to another and in para 5.3 of the writ petition, particulars of transfers effected have been detailed. It is therefore, contended that the petitioner is transferred intermittently on various occasions without any justification and therefore, the challenge is made on the ground of frequent transfer.

(3.) As far as the political consideration or the malafides for transferring the petitioner is concerned, even though no specific allegation against any individual is indicated but Shri Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the papers publication filed collectedly as Annexure P-8 highlighting the action taken by the district administration in stopping the mining illegalities in the district of Sehore and some of the statements given by the petitioner to the Media to canvass his contention that as the petitioner was instrumental in taking these action, he is being punished by transferring him on extraneous consideration, political in nature. It is stated that the petitioner has registered more than 60 cases for illegal mining and similar cases under the Explosive Act and therefore, the action is taken. Accordingly, it is contended that the transfer is on such illegal consideration. Finally it was argued that according to the information of the petitioner on these grounds, a note sheet was prepared by the Revenue Minister and it is on the basis of this note sheet by the Revenue Minister that transfer has been effected. Shri Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even though petitioner had moved an application under Right to Information Act to get this note sheet but the same has not been supplied to him, accordingly contending that the transfer is illegal and on the aforesaid reasons and grounds interference is called for.