(1) 47-WP-5640-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5640/2025 SANJAY S/O BULAKHI KOLHE AND ANOTHER VS STATE OF MAHA., THR. PRIN. SECRETARY, DEPT. OF RURAL DEVPT. AND WATER CONSERVATION, MUMBAI AND ORS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R.G. Dhore, Advocate for the Petitioner (s). Mr. B.N. Jaipurkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Mr. A.V. Palshikar, AGP, for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 10, 2026. 1. Heard. 2. The counsel are ad idem that the petition could be disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 25.02.2026 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 5135/2025. The issue involved was akin the issue in the present case, viz., the transfer orders. The Division Bench considered the relevant provisions and permitted the petitioners to follow the procedure envisaged in the Government Resolution dated 18.06.2024. Similar directions can be issued in the present case as well. 3. In view thereof and for the reason set out in the judgment dated 25.02.2026, the present petition is disposed of with following directions : (i) The petitioners in the present matter shall follow the procedure envisaged in Clause 5.10.1 of the Government Resolution dated 18.06.2024 and make an application to Respondent No. 1 within a period of seven working days from today, who would verify the data Kartikeya 2026:BHC-NAG:12106-DB (2) 47-WP-5640-2025 available and pass a concise order thereon if the application has to be rejected. (ii) Furthermore, the petitioners, if aggrieved by the order of the Chief Executive Officer, would be at liberty to strictly follow Clause 5.10.2, and further process shall be governed by the clauses reproduced above, below Clause No. 5.10. Until Respondent No. 1 decides the representation, the order of protecting the petitioners would be in force. (iii) If the order of the Chief Executive Officer is adverse to the petitioners, the same would not come in effect from two weeks thereafter. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kartikeya