The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, specifically regarding the nature of transfers of police constables.

JUDGMENT

DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ - By a common judgment and order dated August 9, 2019, the Member (Judicial) of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter "the Tribunal ", for short) disposed of 12 (twelve) original applications. The common order of transfer assailed in such original applications by the original applicants were set aside, with a direction upon the respondents in the original applications to reinstate the original applicants on the posts they were transferred from within two weeks from that date. The respondents before the Tribunal (hereafter "the State ", for short) have questioned such common judgment and order in all these writ petitions.

2. The original applicants before the Tribunal being the respondents in the writ petitions (hereafter "original applicants ", for short) are police constables attached to the Police Commissionerate, Pune. At the material time, the original applicants were posted at the Social Security Cell of the Crime Branch of such Commissionerate. By an order dated May 31, 2019 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Pune, all the original applicants stood transferred to various police stations within the jurisdiction of the Police Commissionerate, Pune. None of the original applicants, however, were given postings on transfer beyond a radius of 15 kms. from the Crime Branch office. The primary contention of the original applicants was that they had not completed their normal tenure of five years at the Crime Branch and that the impugned transfers had been issued in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1)(b) read with sub-section (2) of section 22N of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, as amended (hereinafter "the 1951 Act " for short). According to them, such transfers were mid-term transfers as defined in section 2(6B) of the 1951 Act and since the jurisdictional fact upon the existence whereof such mid-term transfers could be ordered was absent, the impugned transfer orders were void ab initio. One other subsidiary contention raised by the original applicants was that their transfers were ordered based on the recommendations of the Police Establishment Board (hereafter "the Board ", for short) but such Board had not been validly constituted in terms of the 1951 Act.

3. Having read the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal, we note three features. First, the contention that the impugned mid-term transfers ordered by the Commissioner of Police, Pune were in contravention of the 1951 Act, found favour with the Tribunal and succeeded. Secondly, although the original applicants had questioned the constitution of the Board, on whose recommendation the transfers were ordered, such point was not raised in course of hearing before the Tribunal and, therefore, the Tribunal did not pronounce its decision on such point. However, thirdly, the Tribunal assigned an additional reason for interdicting the impugned orders of the transfer. Such reasoning was based on certain documents which were tendered across the bar by the learned advocate for the original applicants, the contents whereof were not disputed by the learned Presenting Officer representing the State on a clear misconception of facts. We shall refer to this aspect at a later part of this judgment.

4. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of the impugned orders of transfer the original applicants had reported to the police stations where they had been transferred. Despite their success before the Tribunal, they could not obtain the benefit of the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal because ad-interim relief was granted on September 11, 2019 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which has continued till this date.

5. Since section 22N of the 1951 Act was the sheet-anchor of the original applicants ' primary contention, we need to read such provision. Section 22N, to the extent relevant for the present purpose, reads thus: -

"22N. Normal tenure of Police Personnel, and Competent Authority.- (1) Police Offi