AMAR RAJENDRA NIKAM vs MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (THR. ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) AND ORS. — WP/1391/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226 AND 227. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM070035012026

Filing Number

WP/2398/2026

Filing Date

26-Mar-2026

Registration No

WP/1391/2026

Registration Date

26-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar , Hon'ble Shri Justice Pravin Sheshrao Patil

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar , Hon'ble Shri Justice Pravin Sheshrao Patil

Bench Type

Division

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS ( 99 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

08-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 16-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226 AND 227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AMAR RAJENDRA NIKAM

    Adv. AJIT MAHADEV SAVAGAVE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (THR. ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) AND ORS.

  2. 2.REGIONAL MANAGER (SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE NO. 4, PUNE REGION)

  3. 3.THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, SANGLI DIVISON

    Adv. Rananaware Dhananjayrao D

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar,hon'ble Shri Justice Pravin Sheshrao PatilView PDF

    The High Court of Bombay at Kolhapur quashed the mid-term transfer order of Depot Manager Amar Rajendra Nikam issued by MSRTC on March 16, 2026, finding it violated departmental guidelines and constituted punishment disguised as administrative action. The court held that the transfer lacked specific recorded reasons, violated the prescribed procedure requiring inquiry, officer satisfaction, and higher authority sanction, and was issued without disclosing grounds to the employee—all contrary to settled law and MSRTC's own 2014 circular. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-May-2026

    High On Board (Hob)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar , Hon'ble Shri Justice Pravin Sheshrao Patil

  4. 06-May-2026

    High On Board (Hob)

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar , Hon'ble Shri Justice Pravin Sheshrao Patil

  5. 28-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar,hon'ble Shri Justice Pravin Sheshrao PatilView PDF

  6. 28-Apr-2026

    At 2.30 P.M.

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar , Hon'ble Shri Justice Pravin Sheshrao Patil

  7. 22-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar,hon'ble Shri Justice Pravin Sheshrao PatilView PDF

  8. 22-Apr-2026

    At 2.30 P.M.

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar , Hon'ble Shri Justice Pravin Sheshrao Patil

  9. 21-Apr-2026

    At 2.30 P.M.

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar , Hon'ble Shri Justice Pravin Sheshrao Patil

  10. 15-Apr-2026

    At 2.30 P.M.

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar , Hon'ble Shri Justice Pravin Sheshrao Patil

  11. 10-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar,hon'ble Shri Justice Pravin Sheshrao PatilView PDF

  12. 10-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar,hon'ble Shri Justice Pravin Sheshrao PatilView PDF

  13. 10-Apr-2026

    At 2.30 P.M.

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar , Hon'ble Shri Justice Pravin Sheshrao Patil

  14. 07-Apr-2026

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar , Hon'ble Shri Justice Pravin Sheshrao Patil

  15. 01-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Madhav J. Jamdar,hon'ble Shri Justice Pravin Sheshrao PatilView PDF

  16. 27-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  17. 26-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/1391/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Bombay at Kolhapur quashed the mid-term transfer order of Depot Manager Amar Rajendra Nikam issued by MSRTC on March 16, 2026, finding it violated departmental guidelines and constituted punishment disguised as administrative action. The court held that the transfer lacked specific recorded reasons, violated the prescribed procedure requiring inquiry, officer satisfaction, and higher authority sanction, and was issued without disclosing grounds to the employee—all contrary to settled law and MSRTC's own 2014 circular. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case