Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, claiming to be the Secretary of a political party, filed a writ petition seeking directions to the Police Department of Maharashtra to regularize and publish their transfer policy. He also sought an enquiry into the number of reserved category officers transferred and a stay on the transfer orders of 28 Assistant Commissioners of Police (ACPs), including 26 from the reserved category. The High Court noted that the petition was not filed on behalf of any of the transferred officers, and those officers had already joined their new postings without any grievance. The Court held that transfer is a matter of administrative exigency and courts are reluctant to interfere unless orders are made against statutory rules or are motivated by extraneous considerations. Since no affected officer had complained, the petitioner, as a third party, lacked locus standi. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in R. K. Jain v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 1999, which held that only an aggrieved person can challenge the legality of an action. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Public Interest Litigation - Locus Standi - Transfer of Police Officers - Petitioner, a political party secretary, sought directions to regularize transfer policy and stay transfers of 28 ACPs including 26 from reserved category - Court held that none of the transferred officers had any grievance and the petition was not filed on their behalf - Relying on R. K. Jain v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 1999, the Court observed that a third party has no locus standi to assail the legality of an action unless the aggrieved person does so - Petition dismissed as not maintainable (Paras 1-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a third party, not being an aggrieved officer, has locus standi to challenge transfer orders of police officers and seek regularization of transfer policy.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Locus standi
- Transfer policy
- Administrative exigency
- Public Interest Litigation
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (07) 180
WRIT PETITION NO. 1627 OF 2005
Dalveer Bhandari, C.J., S.J. Vazifdar, J.
Mr. N. D. Kambli i/b. Mr. A. M. Saraogi for the Petitioners, Mr. R. M. Sawant, G.P. for the Respondents
Mr. Jeevan Padmanna Jadhav
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking directions to regularize transfer policy and stay transfer orders of police officers.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought directions to regularize and publish transfer policy, enquiry into transfers of reserved category officers, and stay on transfer orders of 28 ACPs.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that transfer policy was not regularized and that reserved category officers were being transferred disproportionately.
Issues
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to file the petition when the affected officers have no grievance.
Whether the court should interfere in transfer orders made in administrative exigency.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that transfer policy should be regularized and that reserved category officers were being transferred unfairly.
Respondent State submitted that 116 officers were transferred routinely according to settled norms and all have joined without grievance.
Ratio Decidendi
A third party has no locus standi to challenge transfer orders when the affected officers have not complained. Transfer is a matter of administrative exigency and courts should not interfere unless statutory rules are violated or orders are motivated by extraneous considerations.
Judgment Excerpts
Transfer is a matter of administrative exigency and it is for the employer to decide regarding suitability of the employee in different positions at different places.
In R. K. Jain v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC, 1999, the Apex Court has observed that it is the settled position of law that it is for the aggrieved person to assail the legality of the offending action and that a third party would have no locus standi to canvass the legality or correctness of the action.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court under its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 20th July 2005.
