An executed order of transfer cannot be modified or cancelled, and the authority is at liberty to issue a fresh order instead of reviving the original order.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Dwivedi, J. - Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance to the impugned order dated 24.09.2020 (Annexure P/1), petitioner has submitted his joining at the transferred place but still he wants to prosecute the matter and wants order on merit, therefore, arguments heard and matter is being decided finally.

2. The basic contention as has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that an executed order cannot be modified or cancelled. He relied upon a decision passed by this Court in the case of W.P. No. 17295/2017.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner submitted his joining at the transferred place and implemented the impugned order under protest, subject to final decision of this petition because respondents/authorities were compelling him to execute the order, therefore, to avoid any disciplinary action, he has complied the order.

4. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State has also placed reliance on the stand taken by the State in their reply. He has also intimated this Court that after implementing the order of transfer and submitting joining by the petitioner at the transferred place, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present petition and this petition be treated to be infructuous.

5. As per facts of the case, the petitioner is holding the post of Forest Range Officer and is about to complete the age of 60 years and is due for retirement in the month of August, 2022.

6. Petitioner was transferred at Ladkui Forest Division, Forest Division, Sehore vide order dated 10.09.2018 from Forest Range Officer, Sujalpur. He joined at Ladkui on 18.09.2018. He was again transferred vide order dated 12.03.2020 from Forest Range, Ladkui to Forest Range, Anuppur which is 600 km. away from Sehore. He assailed the said order dated 12.03.2020 by filing petition, i.e. W.P. No. 6679/2020 and the said petition was disposed of vide order dated 18.03.2020 directing the respondents authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner and till the decision, by way of interim measure, the petitioner was allowed to continue at Forest Division, Sehore. His representation was decided by the authority vide order dated 17.06.2020 by which the authority has refused to interfere in the order of transfer dated 12.03.2020.

7. The petitioner, thereafter was relieved to join at Anuppur in pursuance to which he submitted his joining on 06.07.2020. The petitioner when performing his duties at Anuppur in pursuance to the order dated 12.03.2020 and order dated 17.06.2020, an order has been issued on 24.09.2020 (Annexure P/1) which is impugned in this petition to modify the executed order of transfer of the petitioner directing him to be transferred as Range Officer, Amarkantak, District Anuppur. This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 24.08.2020 solely on the ground that the executed order of transfer cannot be modified or cancelled because nothing remains to be modified therein after its execution. He relied upon a decision passed by this Court in W.P. No. 17295/2017 (Shami Ulla Khan Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others) in which the Court has also placed reliance upon a decision passed in W.P. No. 1224/2017 (Dr. Devendra Markam Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others).

8. Reply has been filed by the respondents taking stand therein that though the order impugned has been passed showing modification in the earlier order dated 12.03.2020 but that too transferring the petitioner within the District. They have also placed reliance on the orders passed by the Supreme Court saying that in a matter of transfer, scope of interference is very limited. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State has also pointed out that the petitioner has complied the order dated 24.09.2020 and joined at Amarkantak, District Anuppur and, therefore, this petition has rendered infructuous.

9. However, learned counsel for