Gujarat High Court
Bharatkumar Gajuji Thakor vs State Of Gujarat on 8 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/552/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 552 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
BHARATKUMAR GAJUJI THAKOR & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RB THAKOR(6743) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MS SUMAN J MOTLA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,4
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 08/07/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] By way of the present petition instituted under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have invoked the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, calling in question the
legality and validity of the inter-district transfer order dated 3 rd
January 2024 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Banaskantha
at Palanpur.
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 01:21:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/552/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2026
undefined
[2] Since the controversy involved in the present petition
lies within a narrow compass and the issue is no longer res integra,
at the request of the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission
stage.
[3] Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Ms.
Suman Motla, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the
respondent-State.
[4] The facts giving rise to the present petition are largely
undisputed. The petitioners were serving as Head Constables in the
District of Banaskantha. An F.I.R. came to be registered against
them, pursuant to which departmental proceedings were initiated.
Upon conclusion of the departmental inquiry, the petitioners were
found guilty and were visited with the penalty of stoppage of one
increment with cumulative effect for two years. The said
punishment came to be affirmed in departmental appeal. It is,
however, an admitted position that the petitioners were
subsequently acquitted of the criminal charges by judgment and
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 01:21:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/552/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2026
undefined
order dated 29th May 2023 passed by the learned Additional
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deesa, in Criminal Case No.1253 of
2020. Thereafter, the impugned order directing their inter-district
transfer came to be passed by the competent authority.
[5] Aggrieved by the aforesaid transfer order, the
petitioners have approached this Court seeking its quashing and
setting aside.
[6] Heard learned advocate Mr. R. B. Thakore appearing
for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.
Suman Motla appearing for the respondent-State.
[7] The principal contention canvassed on behalf of the
petitioners is that the impugned transfer order, though purportedly
passed in public interest, does not stipulate any definite tenure or
specify the period for which such transfer is to remain operative. It
is submitted that the impugned action is, therefore, contrary to the
law laid down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Hadamatsinh Naharsinh Sisodiya v. State of Gujarat and Others
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 01:21:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/552/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2026
undefined
[Special Civil Application No.12765 of 2010 and allied matters,
decided on 31st July 2013], which has been affirmed by the
Division Bench in State of Gujarat and Others v. Hadamatsinh
Naharsinh Sisodiya [Letters Patent Appeal No.1400 of 2013
arising out of Special Civil Application No.12765 of 2010 and
allied matters, decided on 1st July 2014]. It is contended that
whenever a transfer is effected in public interest, the order must
necessarily indicate the duration for which such transfer is intended
to operate. Since the impugned order admittedly does not prescribe
any such period, it is urged that the same is liable to be quashed on
this ground alone.
[8] On the aforesaid premises, learned advocate for the
petitioners prayed that the present petition be allowed.
[9] Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.
Suman Motla, while supporting the impugned order, advanced the
following submissions:
[9.1] It is submitted that the impugned transfer order is
purely an administrative measure passed by the competent
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 01:21:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/552/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2026
undefined
authority in exercise of its statutory powers, and therefore, no
interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
[9.2] It is further submitted that following the publication of
the news article dated 28th January 2024, the competent authority
immediately initiated appropriate proceedings by issuing a notice
with respect to the alleged misconduct. It is, therefore, contended
that the impugned transfer cannot be said to have been effected
either hastily or in violation of the principles of natural justice. On
such premise, it is urged that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
[9.3] It is also submitted that the impugned transfer has been
ordered in public interest and that, in view of Section 28 of the
Bombay Police Act, the competent authority possesses ample power
to transfer police personnel to any part of the State. The exercise of
such power being administrative in character, it is contended that
this Court ought not to interfere with the impugned order while
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
[10] On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 01:21:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/552/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2026
undefined
Assistant Government Pleader prayed for dismissal of the present
petition.
[11] The learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties have been heard at length. The material placed on record
has also been perused. No other or further submissions have been
advanced by the learned advocates except those recorded
hereinabove.
[12] Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the
material available on record, it emerges that the impugned transfer
order came to be passed on 3rd January 2024, subsequent to the
acquittal of the petitioners by the competent Criminal Court. It is
also an undisputed position that although the transfer order states
that it has been issued in public interest, it does not prescribe any
specific tenure or indicate the period for which the transfer is to
remain operative. In view of these admitted facts, the ratio laid
down by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Hadamatsinh
Naharsinh Sisodiya (supra), as affirmed by the Division Bench in
State of Gujarat and Others v. Hadamatsinh Naharsinh Sisodiya
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 01:21:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/552/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2026
undefined
(Letters Patent Appeal No.1400 of 2013 decided on 1st July
2014), squarely governs the controversy involved in the present
case.
[13] Even at this stage, the decision of the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Haroon Yusufbhai Kadiwala vs. Director
General of Police and another [Letters Patent Appeal No.2277
of 2010 in Special Civil Application No.3739 of 2010 decided
on 17th February 2011] deserves consideration. The Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Haroon Yusufbhai Kadiwala
(supra) has held and observed in paragraphs Nos.7 to 10 as under:
“7. On perusal of various provisions of the Gujarat Police
Manual and the Bombay Police Act, and more particularly, Cl.
(1) of Sec. 28 of the Bombay Police Act which states that every
Police officer not on leave or under suspension shall for all
purposes of this Act be deemed to be always on duty, and any
Police Officer or any number or body of Police officers allocated
for duty in one part of the State, may, if the State Government
or the Inspector-General so directs, at any time, be employed on
Police duty in any other part of the State may, if the State
Government or the Inspector-General so directs, at any time, be
employed on Police duty in any other part of the State for soPage 7 of 10
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 01:21:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/552/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2026
undefined
long as the services of the same may be there required.
8. A plain reading of the Section itself suggests that the
appellant-petitioner could have been transferred, but the only
aspect which needs to be considered is as to for how long the
appellant-petitioner would be kept at that particular place on
transfer. We feel that the State Government should in cases like
the present one should bear in mind and also clarify as to how
long the services of the appellant-petitioner would still be
required at the place where he has been transferred so that he
may not have to stay at the place of deputation for an indefinite
period of time. Secondly, we would also like to clarify that the
appellant-petitioner’s lien in the original parent cadre would
also be protected. So far as seniority of the appellant-petitioner
is concerned, it has been well accepted in the Police Manual that
the same will not be disturbed.
9. Our attention has also been drawn to Rule 153, more
particularly 153(1)(a) where the emphasis has been laid on the
words “and members of the Police force of and below the rank of
Police Inspectors, from one place to another in the State”.
Taking into consideration all the relevant provisions of law, we
are of the opinion that the transfer of the appellant-petitioner
as an Unarmed Head Constable originally posted at Khatodara
Police Station, Surat to Sabarkantha District and placed at the
disposal of Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha at
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 01:21:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/552/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2026
undefined
Himmatnagar, amounts to deputation, because deputation is
also a transfer outside the cadre, and in no manner contrary to
law or the provisions which have been relied upon.
10. We, therefore, deem it fit and proper to observe that under
Rule 152, which provides for inter-district transfers in
emergencies and the other Rule relating to transfer on the
administrative grounds, in case of emergencies, it is desirable
that the authorities should clarify as to how long the services of
a Head Constable/Constable are required to meet with the
exigencies at the transferred place, and as soon as the emergent
administrative exigencies cease to exist at the transferred place,
they must be sent back to their parent cadre. With these
observations, the Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of
accordingly with no order as to costs.”
[14] In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the
impugned order dated 3rd January 2024 cannot be sustained in law.
The reason being that, although the transfer has been purportedly
effected in public interest, the impugned order does not prescribe
any definite tenure or specify the period for which such transfer is
to remain operative. Consequently, the petitioners have been
transferred out of their parent district for an indefinite duration
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 01:21:52 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/552/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/07/2026
undefined
under the guise of public interest. Such an order is plainly
inconsistent with the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions and, therefore, cannot be countenanced. The petition,
thus, merits acceptance.
[15] In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons
recorded hereinabove, the present petition succeeds and is
accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 3rd January 2024
is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to
repatriate the petitioners to their parent cadre within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Rule
is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
CHANDRESH
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Mon Jul 13 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 01:21:52 IST 2026
