38 WP 7888-26-C.DOC Priya Soparkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7888 OF 2026 Mr. Iresh Gangaram Chappalwar …Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. …Respondents Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Rohan Mirpury, for the Petitioner. Mr. A. R. Deolekar, AGP with Ms. P. J. Gavhane, AGP for the State. Mr. Ashutosh Rathod with Mr. Gaurav Bandiwadekar, Mr. Bhushan Bandiwadekar and Ms. Gayatri Bandiwadekar, for the Respondent No.4. CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ. DATED: 19th AUGUST 2026. PC:- 1. Heard Mr. Anil Sakhare, learned senior counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. R. Deolekar, learned AGP appearing for the State and Mr. Ashutosh Rathod, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4. 2. The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass. The Writ Petitioner herein, was posted as Tahasildar, Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District vide order dated 12th June, 2023. Pursuant to the order dated 14th November, 2025, the Respondent No.4 was granted promotion and posted as Tahsildar (Election), in the office of District Collector, Mumbai Suburban District. Thereafter, by PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR Digitally signed by PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR Date: 2026.08.25 19:32:05 +0530 38 WP 7888-26-C.DOC issuing the impugned transfer order dated 24th March, 2026, the Writ Petitioner was transferred from the post of Tahsildar, Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District without, however, assigning any place of posting to him. On the same day, i.e. 24th March, 2026, the Respondent No.4 was transferred and posted as Tahsildar, Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District i.e. in place of the Petitioner, though the said post was shown as vacant. Aggrieved by the orders dated 24th March, 2026, the Writ Petitioner, as Original Applicant, had approached the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT), Mumbai by filing Original Application (OA) No.275 of 2026. The primary contention of the Original Applicant/Writ Petitioner was to the effect that the impugned order dated 24th March, 2026 transferring the Writ Petitioner, was issued before completion of his normal tenure of 3 years at one place of posting. Therefore, the impugned order has been issued in violation of the established norms ordinarily adhered to by the authorities in transfer matters. 3. According to the Original Applicant/Writ Petitioner, the order dated 24th March, 2026 was issued only to accommodate the 38 WP 7888-26-C.DOC private Respondent and therefore, the same was not a transfer order issued in the interest of exigencies of public service. 4. After taking note of the grievance of the Original Applicant/Writ Petitioner, the learned Tribunal had passed order dated 25th March, 2026, suspending the operation of the impugned order for a period of three months i.e. until 12th June, 2026, presumeably on account of the fact that the Original Applicant/Writ Petitioner would complete the full tenure of 3 years as Tahsildar, Borivali, Mumbai on that date. The relevant observations made by the learned Tribunal in paragraphs No.9 and 10 are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- “9. The above mentioned facts & circumstances must therefore result in observing that 'Balance of Convenance' at this stage lies in favour of Applicant and consequently it is directed that the Applicant should continued on post of Tahsildar, Borivali Mumbai Suburban District' and Respondent No.4 on the post of ‘Tahsildar (Election)' in Office of 'District Collector, Mumbai Suburban District' till completion of Normal Tenure of '3 Years' of Applicant on 12.06.2026. In the meanwhile; the 'Revenue And Forest Department' as ‘Cadre Controlling Authority' of ‘Tahsildar' would be at liberty to decide assignment of suitable post to Applicant from 12.06.2026. 38 WP 7888-26-C.DOC 10. The implementation of 'Government Order' dated 24.03.2026 of Respondent No.4 to post of Tahsildar, Borivali Mumbai Suburban District' will thus stand deferred but shall invariably be brought effect on 12.06.2025 when Respondent No.4 shall be relieved from post of ‘Tahsildar (Election)' in Office of ‘District Collector, Mumbai Suburban District' to join on post of Tahsildar, Borivali Mumbai Suburban District'.” 5. The order dated 25th March, 2026 is an interim order and the Original Application is still pending disposal before the learned Administrative Tribunal. The Original Applicant/Writ Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition assailing the interim order dated 25th March, 2026 by contending that instead of suspending the operation of the impugned order dated 24th March, 2026, the learned Tribunal ought to have set aside the same. The said arguments is also premised on the ground that since the Petitioner was serving in the Election Branch, hence, in view of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Electoral Rolls currently under progress, the Petitioner could not have been transferred without the permission of the Election Commission of India (ECI). On such count as well, the Petitioner claims to be entitled to continue in his present place of posting at Borivali. Page 4 of 8 38 WP 7888-26-C.DOC 6. In support of the above contention, Mr. Anil Sakhare, learned senior counsel has argued that the issues involved in this Writ Petition are not confined only to the normal tenure of posting in one place, but the same also pertain to the procedure adopted by the authorities to transfer the Petitioner without assigning any place of posting and also without obtaining the approval of the Election Commission of India. As such, the impugned order dated 25th March, 2026 as well as the transfer order dated 24th March, 2026, deserve to be set-aside by this Court. 7. Mr. Ashutosh Rathod, learned counsel for Respondent No.4, on the other hand, has invited our attention to the consent of the Election Commission of India to the proposal of transfer of the Petitioner and submits that the Writ Petitioner has suppressed material facts and approached this Court with unclean hands. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on such count alone. Similar arguments have been advanced by the learned AGP. 8. After going through the material on record, we find that the grievance of the Petitioner was originally on account of the fact that his transfer was being effected before completion of the normal tenure of 3 years. Taking note of such grievance of the 38 WP 7888-26-C.DOC Original Applicant/Writ Petitioner, by the impugned order dated 25th March, 2026, the learned Tribunal has permitted the Petitioner to continue in his present place of posting till 12th June, 2026, i.e. the date on which he completes the normal tenure of 3 years. It is therefore, evident that by the interim order dated 25th March, 2026, the learned Tribunal had virtually granted the final relief to the Original Applicant/Writ Petitioner. Notwithstanding the same, after enjoying the fruits of the order dated 25th March, 2026, the Writ Petitioner has approached this Court assailing the very same order, which has granted him the relief, this time by contending that he cannot be transferred even after completion of 3 years without the consent of the ECI. 9. It must be born in mind that law regarding jurisdiction of the Courts and Tribunal to interfere with transfer order is extremely limited. Transfer, being an incident of service, any order of transfer would not ordinarily be interfered with by the Court in exercise of power of judicial review unless it is found that the same has been issued arbitrarily and in malafide exercise of powers or in violation of statutory norms, causing serious prejudice to the interest of the 38 WP 7888-26-C.DOC employee. However, no such case has been made out by the Writ Petitioner. 10. From a careful analysis of the facts of the case, as noted above, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order(s) impugned in Writ Petition. On the contrary, we find that after the interim order dated 25th March, 2026 and upon completion of 3 years in the same place of posting, the Original Applicant/Writ Petitioner does not have any right to seek continuation of his posting as Tahsildar, Borivali, Mumbai beyond 12th June, 2026 and therefore, save and except asking for an order of posting, he would not be entitled to any further order. Therefore, we hold that the Respondents are duty bound to assign him a proper place of posting without any further delay. 11. Coming to question of want of consent by the Election Commission of India, we have perused the documents on record, more particularly, the communication dated 11th June, 2026 issued by the Chief Electoral Officer, Maharashtra State, whereby, he has conveyed the consent of the Election Commission of India for transfer of the Petitioner. Therefore, it is factually not correct that 38 WP 7888-26-C.DOC the Petitioner has been transferred without the approval of the Election Commission of India. 12. From examination of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we find that notwithstanding a favourable interim order from the learned Tribunal, the Petitioner, instead of complying with the order dated 25th March, 2026, has made an attempt to cling on to a particular post in a manner which is not befitting the conduct of a responsible Government servant. Therefore, by deprecating such conduct of the Petitioner, we hold that there is no merit in the Writ Petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. (ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.) {