JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition the petitioner has impugned the order by which he is transferred. The order is dated 15th April, 1994 and issued by the Superintending Engineer Administration on behalf of the Chief Engineer Irrigation, Hanumangarh. 2. This order of transfer is assailed mainly on the ground that it is issued at the instance of the Minister for Irrigation. It is also challenged on the ground that the order of transfer does not disclose that it is either in public interest or for administrative exigency or at the request of the petitioner and therefore, it should be presumed that it is for an extraneous purpose, an order issued for extraneous purpose is liable to be struck down. The third ground of challenge is that it is a policy of State Government that ordinarily a person should not be transferred from the place of his posting in the last two years of his service. It is claimed that this policy is mandatory in nature and should be read to mean that no person shall be transferred under any circumstances in the last two years of his service. 3. Notice was issued of his petition on 3rd May, 1994 and the operation of the impugned order was stayed if not already implemented. The matter was ordered to be put up on 17th May, 1994 on 19th May, 1994, when the case come up before this Court, a submission was made on behalf of the State that the petitioner has already been received before the order of this Court dated 3rd May, 1994. Time to file reply was sought, it was extended till today. In spite of this opportunity no reply is filed. The case is, therefore, heard without the reply of the State. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner plead reliance on a decision of this Court for his submission that in the absence of reply, the averments made in the petition will have to be accepted, as to the proposition as laid down it cannot be disputed. The averments made in petition of para 7 is; "That in pursuance of the directions of the Minister, the Non-petitioner No. 1 directed to the Non-petitioner No. 2 on telephone on 31.3.94, that the petitioner should be transferred from Gang Canal, South Division, Ganganagar, Jetsar Circle to RCP, IGNP Srivijaynagar Circle." 5. The averments made in petition of para 7 is; "That in pursuance of the directions of the Minister, the Non-petitioner No. 1 directed to the Non-petitioner No. 2 on telephone on 31.3.94, that the petitioner should be transferred from Gang Canal, South Division, Ganganagar, Jetsar Circle to RCP, IGNP Srivijaynagar Circle." 5. The affidavit in support of this petition states that the information stated in para 7 is true to the personal knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner is resident of Ward No. 3, Srivijaynagar and he claims that the telephonic talk between two Chief Engineers that took place on 31st March, 1994 was true to his personal knowledge and that related to the petitioner being transferred at the instance of Minister who had written a letter on 21st March, 1994. There is no averments made in the petition that this letter was received by the Chief Engineer, Headquarter. There is no connection between Annexure 1 and Annexure 2. Annexure 1 is written by the Personal Assistant of the Minister and it mentions that when the transfer is effected, the Hon'ble Minister be informed. The order of transfer dated 15th April, 1994 does not endorse a copy to the Secretary of the Minister. The averment in the petition is that the telephonic talk dated 31st March, 1994 pertains to obedience of the Minister's orders are unbelievable on the face of it, they are baseless. The Patwari staying in Srivijaynagar cannot have personal knowledge of telephonic talk between two Chief Engineers. In view of this blatantly false statements and in the absence of connection Annexures 1 and 2 it is impossible for me to hold that the transfer of the petitioner is at the instance of the Minister. 6. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel on the following judgments : "1992 RLW page 131, 1990(1) WLN page 594 and 1990(1) RLR 171 ." 7. In support of this proposition that an order passed mala fidely deserves to be quashed. It is undisputedly true that unwarranted interference by any person howsoever high he may be is liable to be quashed if it is proved that it was with mala fide intention as found in above cases. The petitioner has miserably failed to prove the mala fides. These judgments are of no help to him. No other submissions were made. Hence, the petition is dismissed. The petitioner has miserably failed to prove the mala fides. These judgments are of no help to him. No other submissions were made. Hence, the petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******