JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 05/07/2019, by which, he has been transferred from Municipal Council, Dhar to Municipal Council, Raisen, which is about 315 km away from the present place of posting. 2. The said transfer order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is a class III employee. He cannot be transferred at such a distance. He further submits that the impugned transfer order has been issued by the Additional Commissioner, who is not competent Authority to pass the impugned transfer order. In such circumstances, he prays that the impugned order be set aside. To bolster his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the order dated 28/08/2018 passed in W.P. no. 8438/2018 ( Arvind Dod Vs. State of M.P and others ). For the said of reference, relevant paras are reproduced hereunder : 'This court has carefully gone through the transfer order and the reply filed by the respondents. No cogent reason has been assigned in respect of transfer of the petitioner. The Division Bench of this court in the case of Indore Nagar Karmachari Congress (supra) has held that an employee serving one local body can be transferred to the other local body. However, such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional circumstances. In the present case no exceptional circumstances have been pointed out to this court except making a statement that transfer order has been passed on administrative exigencies. The apex court in the case of State of M.P vs. Shankarlal reported in (1980) 1 SCC 702 in paragraph-2 held as under :- '2. We shall quote the relevant provisions of Section 94 of the Act as they stood at the relevant time from the judgment of the High Court. There have been some amendments in the year 1973 with which we are not concerned. They read as follows: ' 94. Appointment of staff. -- (1) Every Council having an annual income of five lakhs of rupees or more shall, subject to rules framed under Section 95, appoint a Revenue Officer and an Accounts Officer and may appoint such other officers and servants as may be necessary and proper for the efficient discharge of its duties. Appointment of staff. -- (1) Every Council having an annual income of five lakhs of rupees or more shall, subject to rules framed under Section 95, appoint a Revenue Officer and an Accounts Officer and may appoint such other officers and servants as may be necessary and proper for the efficient discharge of its duties. 95.Every Council not falling under subsection (1) shall, subject to rules framed under Section 95, appoint a Sanitary Inspector, an Overseer, a Revenue Inspector, and an Accountant and may appoint such other officers and servants as may be necessary and proper for the efficient discharge of its duties: (7) The State Government may transfer any officer or servant of a Council mentioned in sub-sections (1) and (2) and in receipt of total emoluments exceeding one hundred rupees to any other Council." 96.The High Court has taken the view that the words 'any officer or servant of a Council mentioned in sub-sections (1) and (2)' occurring in sub-section (7) mean 'any officer or servant as enumerated or specified in sub-sections (1) and (2)'; that is to say, the officers who can be transferred under sub-section (7) are only Revenue Officer, Accounts Officer, Sanitary Inspector and an Overseer, a Revenue Inspector or an Accountant. No other officer or servant can be transferred. We do not think that the High Court is right in putting this restricted interpretation to sub-section (7) of Section 94. Other officers and servants who can be appointed by the Municipal Councils either under sub-section (1) or under sub-section (2) are also the officers and servants mentioned in these subsections for the purposes of sub-section (7). Theoretically, therefore the power does exist in the State Government to transfer them. We must, however, hasten to add that 'in case of employees getting small emoluments the power seems to be meant to be sparingly exercised under some compelling exigencies of a particular situation and not as a matter of routine. If it were to be liberally exercised, it will create tremendous problems and difficulties in the way of municipal employees getting small salaries. There may be hardly an employee serving under any Municipal Council who cannot be theoretically and literally covered by sub-sections (1) and (2) and subjected to the exercise of power of transfer under sub-section (7) Not only this, in another case decided by this court i.e case of Piyush Bhargav Vs. There may be hardly an employee serving under any Municipal Council who cannot be theoretically and literally covered by sub-sections (1) and (2) and subjected to the exercise of power of transfer under sub-section (7) Not only this, in another case decided by this court i.e case of Piyush Bhargav Vs. State of M.P. WP No. 3649/2017, decided on 01-02- 2018, this court has passed the following order:- 'Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. Matter is being disposed of at motion hearing stage with the consent of the parties. Undisputedly, the petitioner is an employee of Municipal Corporation, Ujjain and by the impugned order, he has been transferred to Municipal Council, Mandsaur. The relevant statutory provision governing the field regarding transfer is contained in Sub-section 5 of Section 58 of Municipal Corporation Act in respect of transfer of an employee of the Municipal Corporation. Subsection 5 of Section 58 of the Municipal Corporation Act read as under:- '(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any rules or byelaws made there under, the State Government may, subject to the conditions specified in sub-section (6) transfer on deputation (any officer or servant of a Municipal Corporation) to any other Municipal Corporation and itn shall not be necessary for the State Government to consult either the Corporation or the Officer or Servant concerned before passing an order of transfer on deputation under this subsection." The aforesaid statutory provision of law has been considered by the Full Bench of this Court in paragraph No.7 of the Indore Nagar Karmachari Congress and another Vs. State of M.P. and another, reported in 1998 (1) MPLJ, 449 wherein Full Bench of this Court after taking note of Section 58 (5) and Section 58 (6) has held that an employee can be transferred from one Municipal Corporation to another Municipal Corporation, however, there should be a valid reason. In the present case, no valid reason has been assigned in the return and only a bald statement has been made that the transfer order has been passed keeping in view the administrative exigencies. The another important aspect of the case is that earlier also the State Government has passed an order transferring the petitioner on 07.06.2011 in similar circumstances and a writ petition preferred by the present petitioner i.e. W.P. No.8514/2011 (Piyush Bhargav Vs. The another important aspect of the case is that earlier also the State Government has passed an order transferring the petitioner on 07.06.2011 in similar circumstances and a writ petition preferred by the present petitioner i.e. W.P. No.8514/2011 (Piyush Bhargav Vs. State of M.P. and others.) was decided on 13.04.2012. This Court in paragraph No.7 to 10 of the order passed in the case of Piyush Bhargav (supra) has held as under:- '7. The issue relating to the transfer of the employees of Municipal corporation from one municipal corporation to another had come up before the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Indore Nagar Nigam Karmachari Congrees and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another reported in 1998(1) MPLJ 449 , wherein the Full Bench after taking note of Section 58(5) and 58(6) of the Act has held that while transferring an employee from one municipal corporation to another, there should be a valid reason. As lien of the incumbent is kept in the parent department, tenure or period of deputation should be specified and it should not be for all time to come. The State Government should exercise this power very sparingly in exceptional cases. 8. After the Full Bench judgment the State has framed Rules of 2000, and Rule 14 thereof provides for transfer of officer and employee of one municipal corporation to another municipal corporation. This Court in the matter of Lakhanlal Sahu Vs. State of M.P. and another , reported in 2001 (5) M.P.H.T.. 360 after taking note of Rule 14 of the Rules of 2000 has held that even after the framing of the Rules, the power of transfer is still subject to the provisions of Section 58 of the Act, the scope whereof has already been defined by the Full Bench. The counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the order dated 26.4.2006 passed in W.P. No.1863/2005(s), whereby in similar circumstances for the transfer of an employee of the Municipal Corporation from one municipal corporation to another has been set aside. (i) On the perusal of the record it is noticed that the respondents have filed to point out any exceptional circumstance warranting the passing of the impugned transfer order. They have also failed to disclose any valid reason requiring the transfer of the petitioner from one municipal corporation to another. (i) On the perusal of the record it is noticed that the respondents have filed to point out any exceptional circumstance warranting the passing of the impugned transfer order. They have also failed to disclose any valid reason requiring the transfer of the petitioner from one municipal corporation to another. This power is to be exercised by the State very sparingly, whereas the impugned order indicates that the petitioner has been transferred on deputation in a routine manner. It is also worth nothing that keeping in view the aforesaid aspect of the matter, this Court vide order dated 21.10.2011 had stayed the operation of the impugned transfer order. The respondents while rejecting the petitioner's representation, have not considered these relevant aspects of the matter. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 7.6.2011 and 18.10.2011 so far as they relate to the petitioner are set aside with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh order in accordance with law as and when the need arises." Earlier also, as there was no valid reason assigned, the impugned transfer therein was quashed, however, the State Government again without there being any valid reason shown in the return has transferred the petitioner in a mechanical manner. Not only this, the mayor of Ujjain has requested the Principal Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department vide letter dated 15.06.2017 that there is an acute shortage of Assistant Engineer in Municipal Corporation and the transfer order of the petitioner should be cancelled. In the aforesaid letter, his work has also been appreciated. It has also been observed that in Simhastha, 2016, he has worked with sincerity and devotion. In light of the aforesaid, as no valid reason has been assigned and there is an acute shortage of the assistant engineers, there appears to be no justification in transferring the petitioner in a mechanical manner, the present writ petition stands allowed. The impugned order is hereby quashed." In light of the aforesaid judgment and also keeping in view the fact that no reason has been assigned for transferring out the petitioner, the impugned transfer order deserves to be quashed and it is hereby quashed. The writ petition stands allowed'. 3. Learned P.L for the respondent/State submits that the impugned transfer order has been passed in administrative exigency, therefore, no interference is required in the impugned order. 4. The writ petition stands allowed'. 3. Learned P.L for the respondent/State submits that the impugned transfer order has been passed in administrative exigency, therefore, no interference is required in the impugned order. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in light of the order passed in the case of Arvind Dod (supra), present writ petition is allowed and the impugned transfer order dated 05/07/2019 is hereby set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to pass afresh order in accordance with law, if need so arises. C c as per rules.