ALOK CHAKRABARTI, J. In the present writ petition subject-matter of chal lenge in the order dated 14-6-1994, passed by the Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he was posted as Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bareilly by order dated 14-10-1992 and he joined accordingly on 24-10-1992, just after ten days of joining the order of posting of the petitioner at Bareilly was cancelled be the order dated 2-11-1992. The petitioner moved a writ petition challenging the said cancellation order wherefrom the writ petition No. 42936 of 1992 arose. By the judgment and order dated 19-4-1994 said writ petition was allowed. The relevant portion of the order is as follows : "as a result of the aforesaid discussions the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 2-11-1992 cancelling the petitioners transfer order dated 14-10-1992 is hereby quashed. However, it shall be open to the authorities concerned to pass fresh transfer order if the exigencies of the service so require and the same be in public interest. The parties shall bear their own costs of this writ petition. " 3. The allegation of the petitioner is that by the order dated 14-6-1994 issued by the respondent No. 2, Mr. Ram Narayan Singh Yadav (R. N. Singh), the respondent No. 7 was transferred and posted as Secretary, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bareilly and by the same order the petitioner was directed to be attached with the office of the Deputy Director (Adminis tration) Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Bareilly. 4. The complaint of the petitioner is that the posting of the respon dent No. 7, Mr. R. N. Singh has been made only on account of the personal and political consideration. The allegation against the respondent No. 7 is that he is an influential person as he is closely related to the Chief Minister of the State. Who incidently is holding the charge of Agricultural Ministry. It is stated that the said respondent No. 7 has succeeded in getting a number of transfer orders cancelled within a short period of time, The orders of trans fer of the respondent No. 7, as alleged, are as follows : (a) By the order dated 6-5-1994 the respondent No. 7 Mr. R. N. Singh Yadav was posted as Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Shahjahanpur. R. N. Singh Yadav was posted as Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Shahjahanpur. (b) By the order dated 11-5 1995 the posting of respondent No. 7 at Shahjahanpur was cancelled. (c) On the same date i. e. 11-5-1994 the respondent No. 2 again passed order posting the respondent No. 7 as Secretary (1st class), Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bareilly. (d) By the order dated 13-5-1994 posting of respondent No. 7 was stayed by the Joint Director Mandi Parishad, Lucknow. (e) By the order dated 15-5-1994, the Secretary to the Chief Minister, U. P. directed the respondent No. 2 that Mr. R. N. Singh should not be posted at Bareilly. (f) By the order dated 24-5-94, the Director Mandi Parishad, cancelled the order dated 11-5-1994, the order by which the respondent No. 7 was appointed as Secretary (1st Class) at Bareilly. 5. It appears that the petitioner has annexed several documents to the writ petition being Annexure Nos. 1 to 7 in support of the aforesaid contention and the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the said documents in support of his contention that the present transfer order was passed at the political interference only for the purpose of getting the respondent No. 7 at proper berth according to his own choice. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that for the said sole purpose repeated orders were passed within a short period and as a result thereof the petitioner has been affected by the impugned transfer order. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner specifically refers to the order which showed that the intention of the Chief Minister has been recorded by his secretary relating to the transfer and posting of the respondent No. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in effecting the impugned transfer order transferring the petitioner neither exigency of service was a factor nor public interest was taken into consideration. 8. Two counter affidavits have been filed ; one by Mr. Radhey Shyam Gupta, being the Senior Assistant in the office of the Director, Mandi Prishad, Lucknow and other by Sri R. N. Singh, the respondent No. 7. 9. Affidavit on behalf of the Government authorities disclose documents wherefrom it shows that by the order dated 14-6-1994 Mr. R. N. Singh, the respondent No. 7 was already transferred as Secretary. Radhey Shyam Gupta, being the Senior Assistant in the office of the Director, Mandi Prishad, Lucknow and other by Sri R. N. Singh, the respondent No. 7. 9. Affidavit on behalf of the Government authorities disclose documents wherefrom it shows that by the order dated 14-6-1994 Mr. R. N. Singh, the respondent No. 7 was already transferred as Secretary. By means of the said affidavit it has been stated that the order dated 14-6-94 was passed in public interest on administrative ground. Provision of Section 26 (M) of the Mandi Adhiniyam was relied upon to show that there is a provision for carry ing out the direction of the Government and therefore, there is nothing wrong as the impugned order has been passed in compliance with the D. O. dated 14-6-94 issued by the Secretary, Agriculture, Mandi Parishad, who is said to be having the supervisory power to issue such direction. The close relation of the respondent No. 7 with the Chief Minister has also been denied. The respondent No. 7 by his affidavit denied any relation with the Chief Minister except that both belong to same caste. The Government Authorities also filed a supplementary affidavit disclosing therein documents dated 6-7-1994 whereby the petitioner was transferred and attached to the office of the Deputy Director (Administration), Jhansi region, Jhansi. The other docu ment, so disclosed, showed that one Sri Ram Pal Singh, Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Deoband has been transferred at Bareilly Mandi Samiti as Second Secretary by the order dated 21-7-1994. 10. In the aforesaid backgrounds now it is to be considered as to whether the impugned transfer order was passed in administrative exigencies and in public interest or it was to give the respondent No. 7 a suitable berth according to his own choice on political interference. 11. The respondents were given no opportunity to produce the record to show that the administrative exigencies and public interest were at all consideration in the matter of the impugned order. At the time of hearing, after adjournment was availed of, it was stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that apart from the documents as disclosed in Annexures to the writ petition as also the affidavits, there is no other relevant record relating to the said transfer order. 12. At the time of hearing, after adjournment was availed of, it was stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that apart from the documents as disclosed in Annexures to the writ petition as also the affidavits, there is no other relevant record relating to the said transfer order. 12. In the circumstances it appears that there is no document on record from which it can appear that there was any consideration in respect of transfer and posting of the petitioner as also the respondent No. 7 except the docu ments already disclosed as annexures either to the writ petition or to the counter affidavit or to the supplementary affidavit. In the circumstances it may be concluded that there was no independent consideration of any adminis trative exigency or public interest requiring the impugned transfer. The said documents which have already been brought before this court as Annexures showed clearly that the whole consideration was posting of respondent No. 7 at the particular station as the only Secretary. 13. The subsequent posting of another person after the transfer of the petitioner was subsequent to the writ petition and apparently was for the purpose of making the case of the petitioner infructuous. No. material has been produced as to the consideration of the proper authorities as to why the petitioner is to be transferred from the said post some where else and why the other person was to be posted in his place. 14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the said posting of the said other person has been made only to cover up the design after the points were urged before this Honble Court. It seems that there is some force in the said judgment, particularly when admittedly there is no record justifying such action. 15. From both the parties i. e. , the petitioner is also the respondents the question has been urged as to the scope of the writ Courts interference in the matter of transfer. Several Rulings dealing with the transfer matter deciding the question in various backgrounds have been cited from the Bar. 16. It seems that the Honble Supreme Court has repeatedly laid down the principle as to when the Courts should interfere with the transfer orders. Reference was made to the case of Mrs. Shilpi Base v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1991 SC 532 . 16. It seems that the Honble Supreme Court has repeatedly laid down the principle as to when the Courts should interfere with the transfer orders. Reference was made to the case of Mrs. Shilpi Base v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1991 SC 532 . The relevant portion of the findings of the Honble Supreme Court in the said case runs as follows : "the Court should not interfere with the transfer orders which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory rule or on the ground of mala fide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted one place or other. He is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer order issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if the transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, Court ordinarily should not interfere with the orders instead affected party should approach the higher authority in the department. " 17. The said principle has been applied in different facts in different cases, some of which have been urged before this Court. The case of Dinesh Chandra Shulkla v. Director, R. K. V. M. Parishad and another, 1994 HVD (All) Vol III page 161, discussed various case laws but in the facts of the said case it was found that the transfer order impugned therein was necessitated by the administrative exigency. 18. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that admittedly on the documents available there is no evidence to support the impugned transfer order on the alleged ground of administrative exigency and in the circumstances the writ of certiorari can be issued without further proof of mala fide. In support of such contention the case of Union of India v. H. C. Gael, AIR 1964 SC 364 , has been cited. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the observation made in paragraph No. 22 of the said case in particular support of the said contention. 19. In support of such contention the case of Union of India v. H. C. Gael, AIR 1964 SC 364 , has been cited. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the observation made in paragraph No. 22 of the said case in particular support of the said contention. 19. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the peti tioner that in passing the impugned transfer order the power has been exercised for only purpose of giving berth to the respondent No. 7, according to his own choice and as such his requirement could not be an administrative exigency of public interest. In the circumstances it has been contended that it was a power exercised for purpose or with an intention beyond the scope of or not justified by the purpose of creating the power. In legal parlance it would be a case of a fraud on a power through no corrupt motive or bargain is imputed. Thus the resulting transfer of the petitioner in the facts of the case, even if, there was on corrupt motive therefore is a fraud on power. In support of such contention reliance was placed on the instance of the case of S. P. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 . 20. With regard to the subsequent orders relating to the petitioner, which were not communicated to the petitioner, the contention of the learned counsel is that mere passing an order is not effective unless it is published, and communicated to the officer concerned and in support of such contention the law laid down in the case of State of Punjab v. Amar Singh, report in AIR 1966 SC 1313 has been referred to. It has further been contended that in the present case in fact the order was passed by the Minister concerned and not by the appropriate authority who can direct the transfer of the petitioner. In that background the contention of the petitioner is that such a decision by a wrong forum is no decision and it is non-existent in the eye of law. In support contention reliance was placed upon the judgment reported in the case of Pandurang v. State of Maharastha, 1987 FLR 89. 21. More relevant cases in similar circumstances were decided and they were referred to by the petitioner. In support contention reliance was placed upon the judgment reported in the case of Pandurang v. State of Maharastha, 1987 FLR 89. 21. More relevant cases in similar circumstances were decided and they were referred to by the petitioner. The earlier one thereof was the case of Sheo Kumar Sharma v. Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Kanpur Dehat and others, 1991 (1) UPLBEC 690 while deciding the said case the court took into consideration the fact of the said case and the law relating to the transfer. Upon findings of the fact that the order of transfer impugned therein was passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari following the order of Education Minis ter who was approached by the Vidhayak His Lordship observed that "it is regretted that a Minister should pass a transfer order which function is to be discharged by the competenta uthority in the department. If anything arose (sic) to the conduct of the incumbent comes to the knowledge of Vidhayak or some other public representative, then he may forward it to the competent authority requesting him to consider the same and do the needful in the matter, but interference by directing transfer straightway is not compatible to the principles of rules of law, by which a country having democratic set up is to be govern ed. All the persons in position should know that this is not the Government of the men howsoever high position they may occupy but is the Government of law. 22. In the said case order of transfer impugned was quashed as the said transfer order was passed at the behest of Vidhayak and Education Minister. The second similar case was the case of Pradeep Kumar Agrawal v. Director Local Bodies and others, 1993 (1) UPLBEC 189. The Division Bench took note of the fact of the said case as also the relevant law relating to transfer. Notice was taken of the letter written from the Member of Parliament to the Minister Nagar Vikas, Government of U. P. for transferring the petitioner at once and that the officers of the State Government made respective endorsement of the said letter indicating that the said transfer was being effected. Notice was taken of the letter written from the Member of Parliament to the Minister Nagar Vikas, Government of U. P. for transferring the petitioner at once and that the officers of the State Government made respective endorsement of the said letter indicating that the said transfer was being effected. The observation made in the said case is as follows : "it would be appropriate to observe here that in a democratic set up like ours, bureaucrats are expected to act and discharge their executive functions impartially and strictly in accordance with the Rules and Regulations. No doubt, as of right no Government servant can claim to be posted either on a particular station or post, therefore the transfers are to be done only in administrative exigencies and in public interest, but in the instant case the letter written by the aforesaid M. P. addressed to Minister for Urban Development bearing endorsement of the officers of the State Government, indicates that instant transfer has neither been made in administrative exigency nor in public interest. " 23. In the aforesaid background of decision and the law relating to transfer in the present case as apparent from the various annexures that the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, U. P. Government (Honble Chief Minister holding the charge of Agriculture Ministry) instructed that Director Mandi Perishad about the desire of the concerned Minister as to posting of Mr. R. N. Singh, the respondent No. 7. Consideration never appeared to be the interest of the administration but merely the interest of the said respondent No. 7 and it is apparent that the alterations of the said transfer orders were made from time to time, ultimately resulting the transfer of the petitioner which is impugned herein the present case. 24. In the aforesaid circumstances the present writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned transfer order dated 14-6-1994 (Annexure No. I to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed and all subsequent orders as follow up action of the impugned order will have no force. However, it is made clear that the authorities concerned have not been prevented from passing appropriate transfer order at proper time in future if the exigency of service so requires in the public interest. In the facts of the case there will be no order as to costs. However, it is made clear that the authorities concerned have not been prevented from passing appropriate transfer order at proper time in future if the exigency of service so requires in the public interest. In the facts of the case there will be no order as to costs. A certified copy of this order may be issued by tomorrow on payment of usual charges. Petition allowed. .