A. S. QURESHI, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants herein have challenged the order dated 7 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) Baroda granting ad-interim injunction pending the disposal of the suit or till the plaintiff completes three years at Kareli Police Station whichever is earlier. The learned trial Judge in his long order has considered various points which were urged before him while granting the interim injunction as prayed for. ( 2 ) MR. S. R. Deviator the learned A. G. P. has urged that the learned trial Judge was not justified in granting the interim injunction to the present respondent as according to him the transfer order was made on the ground of exigency of service or for administrative reasons. According to Mr. Divetia the authority concerned alone has to satisfy itself that such an exigency or administrative reason exists. He submits that it is not open to the court to scrutinies and examine whether such an exigency or such a reason does or does not exist. Mr. Divetia has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in A. I. R. 1981 S. C. 1577 wherein it is held:"we are of the opinion that the High Court rightly declined to interfere with the impugned order. Transfer of a Government servant may be due to the exigency of service or due to administrative reason. The courts cannot interfere with such matters". Mr. Divetia has also relied on a Single Judge judgment of this court (Coram: S. L. Talati J ) reported in 1984 G L. H. 581 wherein it is held Normally it is for the administration to decide as to who is required to be transferred at what place whether an officer should have been transferred is a matter which cannot be decided by a court as it cannot decide regarding the administrative exigencies of a Government Department. Mr. Divetia has also relied on a Division Bench judgment of this court (Coram: P. S. Poti C. J. and G. T. Nanavati J.) reported in 1984 G. L. H. 589-590 wherein it is observed:"it is surprising that the Subordinate Civil Courts take matters of transfers lightly and quite often interfere making a casual approach in passing orders staying such transfers. Governmental administration calls for transfers from time to time and it is not for the court to sit in judgment over every transfer. Governmental administration calls for transfers from time to time and it is not for the court to sit in judgment over every transfer. The Governmental machinery must be allowed play at the joints. It is not for this court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution much less for the subordinate courts in civil suits to weigh in golden scales the propriety or otherwise of a transfer as that must necessarily be left to the authority passing the order of transfer". Mr. Divetia has also relied on a Single Judge judgment of this court (Coram A. P. Ravani J.) reported in XXVI- (1985) G. L. R. 509-511 wherein it is observed:"there may be cases where it may be difficult to show on record as to how the transfer of a particular employee was necessitated. Many a times transfers are required to be made by the exclusive authorities on account of the fact that there may be allegations of corruption and malpractices Just as the allegations of mala files are difficult to be proved similarly the allegations to Corruption and malpractices are almost impossible to be proved. but at the same time in the interest of clean public administration and to see that the public at large is relieved from the oppression perpetrated by such type of employees they are required to be removed to other places and their connections are at least temporarily snapped. Therefore simply because some grounds of mata fides are made out here or there or some breach of certain guidelines or of certain rules is pointed out it should not be held that there is a case for staying the order of transfer at the stage of initiation of proceedings". On the aforesaid decision Mr. Divetia has urged that departmental there are good administrative reasons or exigency of service for the impugned transfer of the respondent P. S. I. from Kareli Police Station to Harijan Cell Baroda (Rural ). Mr. Divetia has also urged that the impugned transfer is in the same district of Baroda. According to him there is absolutely no mala fide in making such a transfer. ( 3 ) MR. Y. N. Oza the learned Counsel for the respondent has urged that the interim relief granted by the learned trial Judge is fully justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. According to him there is absolutely no mala fide in making such a transfer. ( 3 ) MR. Y. N. Oza the learned Counsel for the respondent has urged that the interim relief granted by the learned trial Judge is fully justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. According to him the impugned transfer is not on account of any exiguous or for any administrative reason. In his view the transfer is wholly Mala fide. The transfer according to him is for the ulterior purpose to accommodate another P. S. I. J. D. Katara at the instance of Mohansinh Rathva who is M. P. for Pavi-Jetpur. According to Mr. Oza he has made this specific allegation of mala fide which is not denied by the present appellants in their written statement filed before the trial court. He therefore submits that the specific allegation being not denied should be accepted as correct at least for the purpose of prima facie case and on that basis the respondent is entitled to the interim relief which is granted to him by the trial court. Mr. Oza has further argued that the fact that the respondent was transferred four times within a period of two years is prima facie sufficient to infer Mala fides. Another argument advanced by Mr. Oza is that the impugned transfer is in contravention of the rules and Guidelines laid down by the Government itself in respect off the transfer of its employees. According to him the Government guidelines show that an officer would not ordinarily be transferred from a place for a period of there years and normally such transfers would take place in the months of April or May but not during the middle of the academic year because such transfer would adversely Aspect the education of the children. He therefore urged that the impugned order of transfer is untenable being in contravention of the Governments own rules and gutsiness. ( 4 ) IT is a well settled principle of law that ordinarily the court would not interfere in matters of transfers very lightly because it affects the administration of the State or a public body adversely. But the court would undoubtedly interfere where there is a clear case of mala fide or contravention of some Rules Regulations or guidelines laid down by the State. But the court would undoubtedly interfere where there is a clear case of mala fide or contravention of some Rules Regulations or guidelines laid down by the State. In this case the transfer of the officer concerned is stated to be for the administrative reason and in the exigency of service. As laid down by the Supreme Court in A. I. R. 1981 5. C. 1577 (supra) it is not open to the court to examine the ground of exigency of service or administrative reason. Therefore the impugned order of transfer has to be upheld unless it is shown to be mala fide or contrary to the Rules or Regulations. Mr. Oza as alleged that the impugned Transfer order was with an ulterior motive to accommodate another Sub Inspector at the instance of an M. L. A. who is named by him. At this stage it is not possible to say that there is any substance in this allegation because there is no material before the court to arrive at such a conclusion. It will be open to the parties to lead evidence at the hearing of the suit and establish this fact. Mr. Oza has relied on the case reported in 1985 (2) S. L. J. 760 for his submission that the allegation which he has made in his application for interim relief is not denied by the appellants. Her. Divetia has pointed out that there is a general dial of all allegations which would include the specific allegation of favoring a P. S. I. at the instance of an M. L. A. Although it would have been better if the appoints had specifically denied this allegation but it would not be proper to hold that in absence of specific denial the general denial should be ignored and it should be accepted as an admitted fact merely because of specific non denial. The case referred to by Mr. Oza is not applicable to the facts of this case because here there is a general denial which would also cover a specific allegation. Mr. Oza has urged that mala fides could also be inferred from the fact that the respondent was transferred earlier within a period of two years on the occasional He therefore submits that the frequent transfers should itself be accepted as mala fide. This submission of Mr. Mr. Oza has urged that mala fides could also be inferred from the fact that the respondent was transferred earlier within a period of two years on the occasional He therefore submits that the frequent transfers should itself be accepted as mala fide. This submission of Mr. Oza also cannot be accepted because the administrative exigency may require transfers which may appear to be frequent. The reliance placed by Mr. Oza on the rules laid down by the State that ordinarily an officer should not be transferred for a period of three years from a place and that as far as possible the transfer should not be made docile the year is also not tenable because these rules are also subject. to the exigency of service and for administrative reason a employed may have to be transferred within a period of less than three years Front a place and there only be a few transfers over a period of over three years. ( 5 ) ALTHOUGH it is true that the State must abide by its own Rules Circulars and guidelines in respect of transfers and similar other matters but those Rules are not be taken as if they must be strictly adhered to in all circumstances. Such rules are of general application and are to be followed in the normal circumstances. In special circumstances those rules cannot be pleaded as cartridge absolute right in a Government servant who can successfully challenge the transfer on the ground that the transfer in country to such rules or guidelines. In this case the court felt necessary to call upon the learned A. G. P. to produce the relevant file of the respondent Which the produced before the court. On perusal of which it seems that prim facie there are good and sufficient groups for the impugned transfer. hence at this stage it would not be proper for this court to interfere with this transfer order. However it is clarified that it is open to the parties to lead evidence at the hearing of the suit and establish facts which support their respective Contentions. Any observation made herein would not be taken to have decided any question finally. hence at this stage it would not be proper for this court to interfere with this transfer order. However it is clarified that it is open to the parties to lead evidence at the hearing of the suit and establish facts which support their respective Contentions. Any observation made herein would not be taken to have decided any question finally. At this stage this court is only concerned with the prima facie c. se and this court has to come to a conclusion that prima facie there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order of transfer. Hence this apple of the State will have to be allowed and the judgment said order passed by the lower court will have to be set aside. ( 6 ) IN the result the appall succeeds. The impugned judgment and order of the lower court is set aside. In the circumstances of the case there shall no order as to costs. (KMV) appeal allowed. .