40 WP-1696-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.1696 OF 2026 [Mr. Milind S/o Ramrao Kedar and Others .vs. State of Maharashtra and Another] _____________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Shri. Harish D. Dangre, Adv. a/b Ms. Ayushi Dangre, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri. S. M. Ukey, Addl. G. P. for Respondent/State. Shri. Kartik N. Shukul, D. S. G. I. a/b Shri. Raghav Tiwari, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATE : 22 nd JUNE , 2026 . . In the present petition, the issue involved is whether the Government Resolution dated 22.09.2025 is applicable retrospectively or prospectively and in case, if it is held that the said Government Resolution is applicable prospectively and not retrospectively, whether the transfer orders issued against the petitioners, who are working as Members of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, are liable to be quashed and set aside. 2. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed as Members of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission much before the GR dated 22.09.2025, brought in force. The petitioners have been transferred vide order dated 18.02.2026. 3. In the transfer order dated 18.02.2026, undoubtedly, there is a reference to the GR in question. The purpose of issuance of GR is, not to transfer or appoint any Member on the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the same district to which such Member belongs. 2026:BHC-NAG:8012-DB 40 WP-1696-2026 2 4. In the transfer order of the petitioners, the same reason has been assigned for transfer and in addition to the same, as we have noted that a reference was made to the GR dated 22.09.2025. The above referred fact, without any element of doubt, makes it clear that the impugned transfer orders were issued under the GR dated 22.09.2025. 5. Now, by way of reply, certain reasons are tried to be supplemented to the order of transfer. It is a settled law that, this will not make the order valid which was bad at the inception, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405. 6. Thus, the whole controversy revolves around the issue as to whether the Government Resolution dated 22.09.2025 operates retrospectively or prospectively. 7. The Government Resolution dated 22.09.2025 reads thus : ß‘kklu fu.kZ; %& xzkgd laj{k.k vf/kfu;e] 2019 e/khy dye 102 ¼1½ e/khy rjrqnhUo;s jkT; ‘kklukl fu;e r;kj dj.;kps vf/kdkj iznku dsysys vkgsr- lnj fu;ekrhy dye 102 ¼2½ ¼q½ e/khy rjrqn fopkjkr ?ksmu jkT;krhy loZ ftYgk xzkgd rdzkj fuokj.k vk;ksxkps U;k;nkukps dke fu%i{kikrhus vkf.k ikjn’kZdi.ks ikj ikMys tkos ;kdfjrk [kkyhyizek.ks fu.kZ; ?ks.;kr ;sr vkgs- v½ ftYgk xzkgd rdzkj fuokj.k vk;ksxke/;s R;kp fTkYákpk ewG jfgok’kh vlysY;k mesnokjkph R;k fTkYákrhy ftYgk xzkgd rdzkj fuokj.k vk;kscke/;s v/;{k@lnL; Eg.kwu use.kwd fdaok cnyh djrk ;s.kkj ukgh- c½ ftYgk xzkgd rdzkj fuokj.k vk;ksxke/;s use.kwd gks.;kiqohZ lacaf/kr mesnokjkus T;k ftYáke/;s odhyhpk O;olk; dsysyk vkgs R;k ftYákr lacaf/kr mesnokjkph R;k ftYákrhy ftYgk xzkgd rdzkj fuokj.k 40 WP-1696-2026 3 vk;ksxkps v/;{k @lnL; Eg.kwu use.kwd fdaok cnyh djrk ;s.kj ukgh- 2- mDr rjrqnh egkjk”Vª xzkgd laj{k.k ¼xzkgd rdzkj fuokj.k vk;ksx½ fu;e] 2022 e/;s lekfo”V dj.;kph dk;Zokgh ;Fkkodk’k dj.;kr ;sbZy- 3- lnj ‘kklu fu.kZ; egkjk”Vª ‘kklukP;k www.maharashtra.gov.in ;k ladsrLFkGkoj miyC/k dj.;kr vkyk vlwu R;kpk lax.kd ladsrkd dz-202509221504597006 vlk vkgs- lnj ‘kklu fu.kZ; fMthVy Lok{kjhus lk{kkafdr d#u dk<.;kr ;sr vkgs-Þ 8. It is apparent from the language of the Government Resolution that the same has been issued with an object of ensuring fairness and transparency in the administration of justice by the Commission. 9. If both the above referred Clauses (A) and (B), are considered carefully, it takes us to only conclusion that this is applicable to the appointments or transfers which are to be made in future. Thus, the above referred clauses make it clear that the applicability of the above referred GR is prospective. 10. We are surprised to note the stand taken in the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, wherein it is stated that “though the Government Resolution dated 22.09.2025 does not necessarily provide that it shall be retrospective in nature, the same may be considered to be retrospective.” 11. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petitioners cannot be transferred taking advantage of the above referred Government Resolution dated 22.09.2025, considering the fact that the petitioners’ appointments were made as a Members of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission much before the issuance of said GR dated 22.09.2025. 40 WP-1696-2026 4 12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The transfer orders of the petitioners dated 18.02.2026, which are filed on record at page Nos.42 to 47, are hereby quashed and set aside. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) TAMBE