[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhav Singh Sikarwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 March, 2026
1 WP-9952-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
WP No. 9952 of 2026
(MADHAV SINGH SIKARWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 23-03-2026
Mr. M.P.S. Raghuvanshi learned Senior Counsel with
Mr. Dharmendra Singh Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Mishra - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 15.03.2026, whereby he
has been transferred from the post of Range Officer Satanwada, District
Shivpuri, to the post of Range Officer (Production) in Forest Division,
Dewas, on administrative grounds.
Challenging the impugned order, the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner pointed out that the petitioner was earlier posted at Guna and,
vide order dated 10.02.2025, he was transferred and posted at
Satanwada, District Shivpuri. He joined on 25.03.2025 and, ever since,
he has been sincerely and honestly making his efforts to stop illegal
extraction and transportation of sand/mineral. He referred to the
documents filed as Annexure P-4 & P-5 to show the action taken by the
petitioner to stop the illegal mining.
It is his submission that, because of the petitioner's taking action
against the illegal mining, the mine owners became annoyed and made
efforts for getting the petitioner transferred. He submitted that these
people are powerful and influential and, because the petitioner stopped
2 WP-9952-2026
them from illegal mining, they got him transferred from Satanwada.
He further submitted that a solitary transfer order has been issued,
that too during the ban period, and therefore, the same is illegal. Learned
counsel placed reliance upon the Apex Court judgment in the case of
Arvind Dattatraya Dhande Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1997)6
SCC 169 and in the case of Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India reported
in (2009)2 SCC 592 . He thus prayed for indulgence by this Court.
On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate, on
instructions, produced a copy of the FIR lodged by one Balram Gurjar
against the father of the petitioner, namely Suresh Singh Sikarwar, in
relation to seizure of a dumper by the petitioner. It is alleged in FIR that,
in relation to seizure of dumper, there was some hot talk between the
complainant and the petitioner's father. She also produced a copy of the
memo dated 13.11.2025 written by Collector & District Magistrate,
Shivpuri, to the Government, wherein the transfer of the petitioner was
recommended in order to maintain the law and order situation in
Shivpuri.
From the memo written by the District Magistrate to the
Government, it is gathered that the petitioner has seized a dumper which
was found carrying sand illegally from the forest area. In relation to the
same, there was some agitation by the members of the Gurjar Samaj on
06.11.2025. It is further gathered that there was some agitation by the
Kshatriya Mahasabha, Local Truck Operator Union and other members
3 WP-9952-2026
of the Samaj on 09.11.2025 in favour of petitioner. Keeping in view the
aforesaid agitations, the Collector has recommended for transfer of the
petitioner to any other place, and accordingly, the impugned order has
been passed.
Considering the aforesaid, one thing is clear that the transfer of
petitioner is not a routine transfer under the transfer policy and further
that he is not found to be at fault in his work and performance. The
action is taken against the petitioner because of his action taken against
illegal mining of sand. Prima facie, the petitioner appears to have
performed his work due to which some persons got annoyed.
In the case of Arvind Dattatraya Dhande (supra), the Apex Court
was dealing with a case of transfer of Excise Inspector who was transfer
on the complaint made by liquor vendors on account of action taken by
officer in performance of his duty. The Apex Court, holding the transfer
to be bad in law, observed as under:
"3. It is most unfortunate that the Government
demoralises the officers who discharge their duties
honestly and diligently and brings to book the persons
indulging in black marketing and contrabanding liquor.
This is one of the eloquent cases where such a sorry state
of affairs has come to light."
Prima facie, the case in hand appears to be similar to the aforesaid
case before Apex Court. Considering the aforesaid, the petitioner has
made out a case for issuance of notice and for grant of interim relief.
Accordingly, issue notice to the respondents by Speed post on payment
4 WP-9952-2026
of process fee within seven working days, failing which, this petition
shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the
Court. The notices shall be made returnable in four weeks.
Till the next date of hearing, the impugned order dated 15.03.2026
(Annexure P/1) shall remain stayed and he be allowed to work at his
present place i.e. at Satanwada, District Shivpuri.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
vpn/-
