JUDGMENT S.K. Mookerji, J. - I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned standing counsel. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner, Brij Mohan Yadav, has challenged the transfer order, dated 21 August 1990, and also his suspension order, dated 3 September 1990, copies whereof are annexures 1 and 6 to this writ petition. The basic fact is, that the transfer order was passed against the petitioner on 21 August 1990 and, thereafter, the suspension order followed for non-compliance with the order of the authority. A lot of factual disputes have been raised in this writ petition. It is averred that the transfer order was passed on a date when the petitioner was ill and the transfer order was not even served on him and, therefore, there was no question of violation of the transfer order which necessitated the impugned suspension order. It is also urged that the impugned transfer order has been passed under political influence at the behest of a Member of Legislative Assembly. The above facts are factual and in this writ petition, it is difficult to decide the controversy on such controversial facts. Even the Member of Legislative Assembly, has not been made a party in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the impugned order suffers from mala fide. I do not think that sufficient materials have been given in the writ petition from which this Court can infer mala fide, as alleged. Mere making a statement that the order suffers from mala fide is only an inference, but for drawing that inference, relevant facts are to be given. In this writ petition, the necessary facts, to my mind, have not been given. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the suspension order is also bad in law in view of the regulation 496. In substance, he has submitted that a police officer cannot be suspended in case there is an enquiry contemplated. In the present case from the reading of the suspension order, it is clear that the petitioner has been suspended for not complying with the transfer order passed against him by the authorities. However, I am not inclined to record any finding on this point. Last argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was a station officer and he has been transferred as special investigating staff (SIS). However, I am not inclined to record any finding on this point. Last argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was a station officer and he has been transferred as special investigating staff (SIS). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is an order of reduction in rank under the garb of transfer order. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined at this stage to interfere with the impugned transfer order and the suspension order. However, the petitioner may make a representation raising all the points narrated above, besides other points, if any, to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police of the zone within a period of ten days from today. He shall also file a certified copy of the order passed by this Court today along with the representation. In case, the representation is filed within time, the authority concerned shall dispose of the same expeditiously as far as possible within a period of one month from the date of making of the representation. The petitioner shall extend full co-operation to the authority concerned for disposing of the representation. In case, the desired co-operation is not extended by the petitioner, the authority concerned shall be free to pass any order that may be deemed just and proper. However, it is made clear that any observation made in this judgment shall be binding on the authority concerned. It is also made clear that if the representation is not decided within a period not more than six weeks, the suspension order shall stand revoked. However, it shall be open for the authority concerned to continue with the enquiry, if any, against the petitioner. I am not at all staying the transfer order. 3. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. 4. A certified copy of this judgment may be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within 24 hours.