B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who is working as a Helper at Una office of the respondent-Electricity Board is transferred from Una by an order dt. 27-11-90 by the Board. The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 165 of 1990 in the court of learned Civil Judge (JD) Una and prayed for injunction against his transfer without producing a copy of his transfer order. The learned Civil Judge issued notice and granted ex parte order of status quo on 19 Thereafter the learned Civil Judge after hearing both the sides dismissed the application Exhibit-5 for interim injunction by his order dated 26-6-91 and vacated the order of status quo granted earlier. Against the said order passed by the learned Civil Judge the petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Appeal No. 125/91 before the learned Extra Assistant Judge Junagadh. The learned Assistant Judge continued the order of status quo till the appeal came to be dismissed by him on 20-7-91. ( 2 ) I am told by Mr. Rana L. A. for the petitioner that thereafter on an application a statement was made by respondent No. 3 before the learned Assistant Judge on 20-7-91 stating that they will not implement the impugned order of transfer for some time because of that even today the order of transfer is not implemented. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has challenged the above orders passed by the courts below before this Court in this C. R. A. ( 4 ) MR. Rana L. A. for the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the courts be- low on the ground that the impugned order of transfer came to be passed at the instance of local M. L. A. Shri Punjabhai B. Vansh and submitted that the Courts below have committed an error in not granting injunction against the impugned order of transfer. In support of his submission Mr. Rana relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar reported in Labour and Industrial Cases 1991 (SC) 360. Mr. Rana also took me through a letter dt. 3-1-91 addressed by Shri Vansh to the Minister of State for Energy which is annexed at Annexure- 1 to this application in support of his submission. The above submission of Mr. Rana is required to be rejected on more than one grounds. Mr. Rana also took me through a letter dt. 3-1-91 addressed by Shri Vansh to the Minister of State for Energy which is annexed at Annexure- 1 to this application in support of his submission. The above submission of Mr. Rana is required to be rejected on more than one grounds. FIRSTLY because the petitioner-plaintiff has not joined the M. L. A. Shri Vansh as a party defendant in his suit. Therefore in absence of said M. L. A. in the suit proceedings no such al- legation of mala fides can be considered by the court. Secondly in the application for injunction Exh. 5 no such allegation is at all made against that M. L. A. but only general and vague allegation is made that because of change in Govern- ment due to political pressure the respondent-Board is likely to transfer the plaintiff-petitioner. Therefore notice of such vague allegation of mala fides cannot be taken into considera- tion by any Court. Thirdly the impugned order of transfer was already passed much before the filing of the suit i. e. on 27-11-90 and the suit was filed on 19 The letter at Annexure-1 to this peti- tion was addressed by the said M. L. A. to the Minister of State for Energy on 3-1-91 i. e. after the filing of the suit and passing of the impugned order of transfer. Fourthly even if such a letter was addressed by the M. L. A. to the Minister prior to the order of transfer there would be nothing wrong in writing such letter. After all what is written in the letter ? By that letter the M. L. A. brought to the notice of the Minsiter of State for Energy that serious complaints have been made against the petitioner. It is also stated in the said letter that due to political backing he is not attending to his duties and being a public servant he cannot do any political work. It is further stated in the said letter that the plaintiff-petitioner was taking advantage of his position as President of Youth Congress (I) at Una. Therefore he (M. L. A.) has requested the Minister to inquire into the matter and take steps against the petitioner about the complaints made against him. It is further stated in the said letter that the plaintiff-petitioner was taking advantage of his position as President of Youth Congress (I) at Una. Therefore he (M. L. A.) has requested the Minister to inquire into the matter and take steps against the petitioner about the complaints made against him. Merely because such a letter is written by said M. L. A. can it be said that the M. L. A. has acted with mala fide intention against the petitioner ? The answer would be No. ( 5 ) IN my view when serious complaints made against the petitioner have come to the knowledge of the M. L. A. it is his duty to bring to the notice of the Minister about such com- plaints and to request the Minister to inquire into the matter and take steps against the petitioner. Being an elected representative of the people he has to write about the misdeeds of any public or Government servant to the appropriate authority which is done in this case by the M. L. A. In fact even after such complaints were brought to the notice of the M. L. A. if he has not done anything in the matter against the petitioner then in my view the M. L. A. would have failed to discharge his duty to the people who have elected him for representing the cause of the people; therefore nothing wrong is done by the M. L. A. in writing such a letter to the Minister. Further it will be the duty of each and every elected candidates at every level to properly represent the grievances of the people who have elected him before appropriate authorities. And if he does so no allegation of mala fides can be alleged against him and even if it is alleged then the court cannot accept the same to be true. THEREFORE it will be always the duty of the court to examine as and when allegations of mala fides are levelled against any person while examining the allegations of mala fides the Court must see that strong and concrete allegations of mala fides are levelled against a person and not vague indefinite and ill-founded allegations of mala fides. THEREFORE it will be always the duty of the court to examine as and when allegations of mala fides are levelled against any person while examining the allegations of mala fides the Court must see that strong and concrete allegations of mala fides are levelled against a person and not vague indefinite and ill-founded allegations of mala fides. While examining such strong and concrete allegations of mala fides it is the duty of the Court to protect such persons if on account of any personal grievance of such elected candidate such order is passed. It is a common phenomenon that sometimes M. L. A. s. compel the public or Government servant to do a particular thing which he is not supposed to do in due discharge of his duties and thereby if he refuses to become Yes Man of such M. L. A. s. then the public servant or Government servant is harassed by them by political pressure. In such circumstances only the Court should protect such public servant or Government servant; otherwise not. ( 6 ) IN fact the judgment of Supreme Court cited by Mr Rana on the contrary lays down that the Court should not lightly interfere with the transfer when such order is passed either in public interest or for administrative reasons. It is to be noted that in this case though the order of transfer was not produced on record the learned Civil Judge granted ex parte injunction against the said order. In absence of the impugned order on record I fail to understand as to the Court can know for what reason and on what ground and under what circumstances the impugned order passed ? If the impugned order is not on record then how the court can appre- ciate the ground of challenge of that order ? Unfortunately our civil courts in absence of the order under challenge on record of the case before it simply rely upon the averments made in the plaint and injunction application Exh. 5 and grant ex parte injunction which is not at all legal and proper. In such cases when the order under challenge is not produced on record by the plaintiff then the civil courts should not and ought not grant any injunction against such or- der. 5 and grant ex parte injunction which is not at all legal and proper. In such cases when the order under challenge is not produced on record by the plaintiff then the civil courts should not and ought not grant any injunction against such or- der. ( 7 ) IN the instant case it is to be noted that though the impugned order of transfer was passed on 27-11-90 the suit was filed only on 19-12-90. It is not stated either in the plaint in the application for injunction that the order of transfer is already passed. But it is stated that the defendants are contemplating and attempting to transfer the petitioner-plaintiff due to political pressure. Now the order of transfer dated 27 was produced before the court only after the ex parte injunction was granted and the defendants had filed their written statement. It has been clearly stated that the plaintiffs transfer is made due to administrative reasons. It was also pointed out that said transfer is not made due to political pressure. It was also pointed that the job of the petitioner is a transferable job and the petitioner has remained at Una for more than 7 years. Thus it has become abundantly clear that the order of transfer was passed due to adminis- trative reasons. But still unfortunately the Civil Court interfered with the said transfer order by granting ex parte injunction which normally distrupts the smooth functioning of the admini- stration. ( 8 ) CONSIDERING the reply of the defendantboard and the contents of the transfer order the learned Judge subsequently vacated the injunction and dismissed the application Exh. 5. ( 9 ) THUS from the facts of the present case only I am fortified in my view that the civil courts should not and ought not grant any ex parte injunction against the order which is sought to be challenged without producing a copy of the order on record before the Court. 5. ( 9 ) THUS from the facts of the present case only I am fortified in my view that the civil courts should not and ought not grant any ex parte injunction against the order which is sought to be challenged without producing a copy of the order on record before the Court. ( 10 ) IT is to be further noted that if the transfer order is passed either on administrative grounds or in public interest then it is not open to the Civil Court to interfere with such order of trans- fer because the Civil Court is not an Appellate Authority therefore it cannot sit in appeal over the impugned order and decide the legality and validity of such order of transfer passed by the authority who has jurisdiction and power to issue such order of transfer. ( 11 ) NOW it is well settled law by the Supreme Court that in case of transfer the only proper remedy is to make a representation to the appropriate higher Authority. Therefore as and when the Civil Court is approached against the order of transfer then the Civil Court should not interfere with such transfer order as the Civil Court is not an Appropriate Forum to redress the grievances of the person against whom the order of transfer is passed. ( 12 ) I am in broad agreement with the reasons assigned by the courts below therefore I do not see any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below in a petition which is filed u/s. 115 C. P. C. Thus it fails and is dismissed. ( 13 ) AT this stage Mr. Rana L. A. for the petitioner prayed that the operation of this order may be suspended for sometime. However the appeal preferred before the Lower Appellate Court came to be dismissed on 20-7-91 and the injunction came to be vacated on that day. There- after the same is not extended except the bare words that respondent No. 3 has made a state- ment before the Lower Appellate Court not to implement the order for sometime therefore the transfer order is still not implemented is no ground for this court to suspend the operation of this order. There- after the same is not extended except the bare words that respondent No. 3 has made a state- ment before the Lower Appellate Court not to implement the order for sometime therefore the transfer order is still not implemented is no ground for this court to suspend the operation of this order. Even if the Lower Appellate Court had continued the injunction for some time to enable the petitioner to approach this Court which has remained in force till I passed this order even then I would not have suspended the implementation of this order. Because staying such order of transfer even for a day is not in the interest of administration as it operates a lot of complication. Therefore the prayer to suspend the operation of this order is rejected. The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the respondent-authorities for implementing the impugned order of transfer forthwith. .