JUDGMENT H.C. Mital, J. - The petitioner is a Sub-Registrar and in April 1986 he was transferred to Tehsil Mohammadabad Gohna (then in district Azamgarh) now in District Mau. By order dated 23rd September 1989 he was transferred to Sadar Tehsil Maunath Bhanjan in the district of Mau by order of the District Registrar where he joined on the same date. However, subsequently by order dated 6th December, 1989 he was directed by the District Registrar to go back to Mohammadabad Gohna. That order dated 6th December, 1989 of the District Registrar has been challenged in this writ petition on the ground that it has been passed on the illegal dictates and command of the State Government. It has been further alleged that the Slate of U.P. through the Secretary, Institutional Finance, U.P. Lucknow, respondent No. 3 exercised undue influence and he had no jurisdiction to order any transfer in the matter ; that the alleged order suffers from lack of application of mind by the District Registrar himself. It has been further alleged at para 10 of the petition that the District Registrar, respondent No. 1 could pass the order only after taking the approval of the Inspector General, (Registration), U.P. and in the present case no such approval of the Inspector General was taken. It has also been,alleged that Sri Amrish Chand Pandey, respondent No. 5 M.L.A. who happens to be brother-in-law of respondent No. 4 Harishikesh Pandey, Sub Registrar, Tehsil Gangapar, Varanasi, exercised pressure on the Secretary, Institutional Finance, U.P. Lucknow, respondent No. 3 as a result of which the petitioner has been transferred. 2. In the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 it has been stated that on the creation of the new Revenue District of Mau, a Sub Registrar's Office was also established there. As no one was immediately appointed on the newly created post of Sub Registrar, a temporary appointment was made by the District Registrar as provided under Section 12 of the Registration Act. 3. Later on, the Inspector General (Registration) respondent No. 2 by his order dated 11.10.89 posted respondent No. 4 as Sub Registrar at Maunath Bhanjan and when respondent No. 4 reported for joining the District Registrar, respondent No. 1, did not allow him to join. Thereupon he reported to the Inspector General (Registration) respondent No. 2. 3. Later on, the Inspector General (Registration) respondent No. 2 by his order dated 11.10.89 posted respondent No. 4 as Sub Registrar at Maunath Bhanjan and when respondent No. 4 reported for joining the District Registrar, respondent No. 1, did not allow him to join. Thereupon he reported to the Inspector General (Registration) respondent No. 2. The I.G. (R) by his letter dated 28.11.1989 directed the District Registrar to allow respondent No. 4 to joint at Mau and a report was also made to the Government by the I.G. (Registration). As The directions of the I.G. (Registration), the competent authority to transfer the Sub Registrars in U.P. was not complied with by the District Registrar, the State Government directed the respondent No. 1 to comply. There upon by the impugned order dated 6.12.1989 the petitioner was transferred back to Mohammadabad Gohna and there after the respondent No. 4 took over charge and has worked since 7th December, 1989 and was working when the stay order was granted by this court and communicated to them and from 18th December 1989 the petitioner on the basis of the stay order is working at Mau as the Sub Registrar; that the impugned order is perfectly legal and without any malice or influence and the writ petition has no force. 4. A counter affidavit has also been filed by respondent No. 4 taking the similar pleas as taken by respondent No. 1, 2 and 3. Respondent No. 5 Sri Amrish Chand Pandey, M.L.A. has also filed his affidavit denying that he had ever approached the Secretary Institutional Finance, U.P. and has asserted that on 11th October, 1989 when the respondent No. 4 was transferred by the I.G. (R) he was not even a member of the U.P. Legislative Assembly ; that he belongs to the Congress (I) Party arid was declared elected in the last elections on 27.11.1989 and immediately thereafter on 5th December, 1989 Sri Narain Dutt Tewari, the Chief Minister, Congress (I) resigned and that now Janta Dal is in Government. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and the State. On behalf of the petitioner it was urged that according to Rule 83 of the Registration Manual (Part II) the power of transferring departmental Sub Registrars from one place to another is vested in the Inspector General. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and the State. On behalf of the petitioner it was urged that according to Rule 83 of the Registration Manual (Part II) the power of transferring departmental Sub Registrars from one place to another is vested in the Inspector General. The District Registrars are also empowered to transfer Sub Registrars from one office to another within district provided that no such transfer shall be made without obtaining previous approval of the Inspector General ; if a Sub Registrar has not completed two years at office or if there is special order of the Inspector General for any Sub Registrar to be retained in a particular office for a certain period, an application by a Sub Registrar for transfer to another district shall be submitted to the District Registrar who is empowered to with hold the application if he is not prepared to support it. The very existence of such rule was denied on behalf of the State and it and was urged that it is a paragraph in the book as there are no rules after Rule 23. That apart, it was also pointed out that by U.P. Government Gazette (Para I) dated 1st January 1983 the old rules of 1942 stands amended and new Rules of U.P. Sub Registrars Service Rules 1983 have been substituted which do not contain any such rule. 6. On behalf of the State our attention was drawn to the following relevant provisions in the Registration Act: Section 10. Absence of Registrar or vacancy in his office. - (1) when any Registrar, other than the Registrar of a district including a Presidency town, is absent otherwise than on duty in his district, or when his office is temporarily vacant, any person whom the Inspector-General appoints in this behalf or, in default of such appointment, the Judge of the District Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the Registrar's office is situated, shall be the Registrar during such absence or until the State Government fills up die vacancy. (2) When the Registrar of a district including a Presidency-town is absent otherwise than on duty in his district, or when his office is temporarily vacant, any person whom the Inspector General appoints in this behalf shall be the Registrar during such absence, or until the State Government fills up the vacancy. Section 11. (2) When the Registrar of a district including a Presidency-town is absent otherwise than on duty in his district, or when his office is temporarily vacant, any person whom the Inspector General appoints in this behalf shall be the Registrar during such absence, or until the State Government fills up the vacancy. Section 11. Absence of Registrar on duty in his district. - When any Registrar is absent from his office on duty in his district, he may appoint any Sub Registrar or other person in his district to perform during such absence all the duties of a Registrar except those mentioned in Section 68 and 72. Section 12. Absence of Sub-Registrar or vacancy in his office. - When any Sub-Registrar is absent, or when his office is temporarily vacant, any person whom the Registrar of the district appoints in this behalf, shall be Sub-Registrar during such absence, or until the vacancy during such absence, or until the vacancy is filled up. Note : This is a similar provision as in the two preceding sections relating to the arrangements in the casual or temporary vacancies in the office of Sub-Registrars. Power in this respect has been given to the District Registrar of that district. Section 13. Report of State Government of appointment under Section 10, 11 and 12. - (1) All appointments made under Section 10, Section 11 or Section 12 shall be reported to the State Government by the Inspector General. (2) Such report shall be either special or general as the State Government directs. It is clear as provided under Section 10 the Inspector General of Registration is the transferring authority of the Sub Registrars. Under Section 12 when office of Sub-Registrar is temporarily vacant or sub-Registrar is absent, the District Registrar may appoint any person during such absence or until the vacancy is filled up. Section 13 further provides that all appointments made in Sections 10, 11 and 12 shall be reported to the State Government by the Inspector General that apart, all these appointments are subject to the approval of the State Government also. Thus it admits of no dispute that the Inspector General is normally the transferring authority of the Sub-Registrar but still he has to inform the State Government and the State Government has the right to fill up the vacancy. Thus it admits of no dispute that the Inspector General is normally the transferring authority of the Sub-Registrar but still he has to inform the State Government and the State Government has the right to fill up the vacancy. Hence even if without entering into the dispute whether rule 83 does exist or not it being inconsistent with the specific provisions of Section 12 and 13 of the Act, the same cannot be given effect to. This further negatives the contention of the petitioner that at the behest of the Secretary Institutional Finance i.e. the State Government, the petitioner was transferred from Mau and respondent No. 4 has been posted in his place. Even if it be so, that being in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act cannot be questioned. 7. That apart, we have gone through the correspondence in this regard and from it we are satisfied that in consultation with the Inspector General of Registration the State Government had prepared list of transfers which was given effect to by the Inspector General and consequently in the temporary vacancy created after the establishment of a Sub-Registrar's office at Maunath Bhanjan which was earlier filled by the Deputy Registrar by posting the petitioner, the Inspector General (Registration) posted the respondent No. 4 in accordance with the provisions of Indian Registration Act. Hence the contention that the Inspector General had not applied his mind but acted at the behest of the Secretary, Institutional Finance is without any force. 8. In the writ petition it has also been urged that respondent No. 4 Sri Amrish Chand Pandey, an M.L.A. had influenced die State Government. That allegation is prima facie not only false but mischievous in view of the undisputed fact that Sri Amrish Chand Pandey was elected as an M.L.A. on Congress (I) Ticket in the last election on 20.11.1989 and thereafter the Congress Government resigned and that of Janta Dal Government came into office, while Inspector General (Registration) had passed Order of transfer appointing respondent No. 4 at Mau in place of the petitioner on 11.10.1989 prior to the election of Sri Amrish Chandra Pandey on 27. 11. 1989. 9. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. The stay order stands vacated.