GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD AND ANOTHER Vs. BABUBHAI JOITARAM PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent who is serving under the petitioner Gujarat Maritime Board was posted at Bhavnagar and joined his duties at Bhavnagar on 4-8-1981. He was working there since then. By an order dated 30th May, 1986, he was transferred to Jamnagar alongwith six other Executive Engineers of the Board. The respondent plaintiff, being aggrieved by the order of transfer, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 526 of 1986 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Bhavnagar and at the time of filing the suit, he also filed usual application at Exhibit 5 for temporary injunction and prayed for that the transfer order may not be implemented till 'the final disposal of the suit. The learned Trial Judge issued ad-interim injunction and also issued notices to the defendants. The allegation of the plaintiff is that his transfer from Bhavnagar to Jamnagar was malafide one. His allegation is that some work of constructing platform was to be carried out and tenders were invited and tender of one Jay Bajarang Cooperative Society was accepted by him and work order was also issued to the said Co-operative Society. But the said society was not allowed to do the work and therefore, the said society filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1086 of 1985 in the Civil Court at Bhavnagar for injunction against the Board and the plaintiff respondent was also impleaded as a defendant in that suit. The plaintiff's case is that he wanted to place true facts on record in their suit, while the Superintending Engineder wanted that he should not place true facts on record with a view to see that the plaintiff Jay Engineering Co-operative Society failed in the suit. It is the allegation of the plaintiff that because he did not agree with the line adopted by the Superintending Engineer in that suit, he was transferred from Bhavnagar by the order dated 30-5-1986. The plaintiff alleged that the Superintendcing Engineer and the Executive Engineer posted vice him were likely to tamper with the record and, therefore he was transferred from Bhavnagar. In short, the case of the plaintiff is that he has been transferred for an ulterior motive and, therefore, the transfer was malafide.

(2.) The application for temporary injunction was resisted by the Board which contended that the suit was not maintainable as no notice was given before filing of the suit as required under Section 107 of the Gujarat Maritime Board Act, 1981. It was also contended that the allegation about malafide was baseless and that the order passed to transfer the plaintiff alongwith six others was in the interest of the Board and that the plaintiff was not selected for the transfer. The learned Trial Judge, after hearing the advocates for the parties, vacated the ad-interim temporary injunction which was granted by him earlier. Being dissatisfied with the same, the respondent-plaintiff filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 228 of 1986 in the Court of District Judge at Bhavnagar. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was able to make out a prima facie case that his transfer was malafide and that balance of convenience was also in his favour for granting injunction. He allowed the appeal and granted temporary injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff. Being dissatisfied with the same, the present Revision Application has been filed.

(3.) The learned advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that this is a revision application and hence this court will not be justified in interfering with the order passed by the District Court in Appeal. He submitted that there is no scope for interfering with the order passed by the District Judge in this revision application. In support of his submission, he drew my attention to a decision of the Supreme Court .in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics v. Ajit Prasad, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 76. The Supreme Court has observed therein as follows: