JUDGMENT 1. - The present writ petition has been filed against the order of the transfer dated 17th May, 1995 by which the petitioner was transferred from Kotputli to Tara Nagar. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Revenue Officer in the year 1986 and was performing the duties of Executive Officer at Municipal Board, Nadbai. He was transferred in December, 1987 to Bagru and in Jan. 1989 to Municipal Board, Mohanpur. A further transfer was made to Shahpura in July 1991. The petitioner was again transferred to Kotputli on 13th June 1994 from where the present transfer order have been made which has been challenged in the writ petition. It is submitted that Shri Vinod Sharan Choudhary who is the Chairman of the Municipal Board; Kotputli was instrumental in getting the letter from Sh. Mool Chand Saini, General Secretary, BJP Kotputli. The photo copy of the letter dated 1st May 1995 has been placed on record in which it has been stated that the continuance of the petitioner at Kotputli would be prejudicial to the interest of Bhartiya Janata Party in Municipal Elections. It is also stated that an another letter was written by Mr. Surya Kant Sharma, President Bhartiya Yuwa Morcha (Medical Cell) which is also addressed to the Local Self Government Minister in which it was stated that the petitioner be transferred. The petitioner has also submitted that it was on account of the political interference that the petitioner was transferred and the Minister for Local Self Government was requested by Shri Mool Chand Sharma and. Shri Surya Kant Sharma as per the letter written by them. The petitioner has also stated that a threat was given by Sh. Vinod Sharan Choudhary that the petitioner would be transferred from Municipal Board, Kotputli to a distant place by using his influence on the Minister Local Self Government. The respondent No. 3 desired transfer for political purpose in order to further the prospects of Bhartiya Janata Party in the Municipal election Municipal Board, Kotputli. Vinod Sharan Choudhary that the petitioner would be transferred from Municipal Board, Kotputli to a distant place by using his influence on the Minister Local Self Government. The respondent No. 3 desired transfer for political purpose in order to further the prospects of Bhartiya Janata Party in the Municipal election Municipal Board, Kotputli. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was on the basis of the pressure and influence of the respondent No. 3 on the Minister that the if petitioner is not transferred he will resign and in order to satisfy and oblige respondent No. 3, the Minister has passed order without application of mind and without considering the administrative exigencies and public interest. The exercise of the power of transfer is regarded to be malafide and a colourable exercise of power for collateral purposes and on extraneous considerations amounting to abuse of the power. 2. A reliance has been placed on the decision of Chiraranjan Shit v. State of W. Bengal, 1981(2) SLR 810 where the Calcutta High Court has held that if the transfer is made at the behest of political leaders then it cannot be considered to be a bonafide exercise of power and is a colourable exercise of power. 3. The decision of Himachal Pradesh High Court in A.K. Vasudeva v. State of H.P., 1981(1) SLR 446 has also been relied which is held that where the transfer was made on the political grounds to accommodate some favourite of a local MLAs, it was found that the transfer is not proper not on the ground of administrative reason and public interest. 4. The decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Umesh Chand Tiwari v. State of U.P., 1988(1) SLR 409 has also been relied where the transfer was not considered to be a routine or usual but was at the behest of State Government. The decision of A.P. Roypall v. Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555 and V. Vardha Rao v. State Karnataka AIR 1986 SC 1955 was also referred that the exercise of the power should be done honestly, bonafide and reasonable. the Allahabad High Court came to the conclusion that an order of transfer should not normally be interfered with receipt in those rare cases where it crosses the hardline which renders it vulnerable because of being unreasonable, unjust or unfair. 5. the Allahabad High Court came to the conclusion that an order of transfer should not normally be interfered with receipt in those rare cases where it crosses the hardline which renders it vulnerable because of being unreasonable, unjust or unfair. 5. The decision of the Orissa High Court in Achyutananda Behera v. State of Orissa 1985(2) SLR 16 has also been relied that the order of transfer unless it is infected by malafides or oblique motives is not assailable. The Administrator is the best judge of the exigencies of public service, the interest of administration unless fettered by rules of instructions the jurisdiction of the authority competent to transfer is indisputable. But where the exercise is for collateral purpose or with oblique motives, it is colourable exercise of power and is malafide. The burden to prove malafide is on the person.who alleges the same. 6. Reliance, has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramadhar Pandey v. State of U.P. 1993(4) SLR 349 in which it has been held that in the absence of recital of `public interest' in the order of transfer or from the other record and also in absence of a counter affidavit, the public interest involved cannot be concluded. It was observed by the Apex Court that it cannot be gainsaid that transfer is a necessary concomitance of every service, but if such a transfer is effected only on certain conditions it is necessary to adhere to these conditions. In the absence of the public interest, the order of transfer cannot be supported. 7. The decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jagdish Chander v. State of Harayana, 1990(6) SLR 126 was also relied on the point that transfer on the basis of complaints without conducting any enquiry into the complaints and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner is arbitrary in nature and is liable to be quashed.The decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of V.S. Sastry v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, 1980(1) SLR 884 has also been relied to show that the order of transfer though is an administrative order but the subjective satisfaction formed on irrelevant and non-existent or extraneous grounds is liable to he quashed. 8. The respondents have denied that the Chairman Municipal Board gave any threat to the petitioner. The letter allegedly written by Mr. 8. The respondents have denied that the Chairman Municipal Board gave any threat to the petitioner. The letter allegedly written by Mr. Mool Chand Saini. Secretary General, Bhartiya Janta Party and Mr. Surya Kant Sharma are stated not to have been received by the Minister concerned. The transfer is not said to be based on account of political interference but is on administrative exigencies. The ground of malafide has also been denied. An affidavit of Mr. Vinod Sharan Choudhary has been filed who has denied that the letters dated 1/3.5.95 alleged to be got written by him through Shri Mool Chand Saini and Shri Surya Kant Sharma were got written by him. It is also sated that he never wrote any letter or got any letter written by any person to the Minister for Local Self Government or for that matter to anybody in the Government including the Directorate of Local Self Bodies for transfer the petitioner from Kotputli to another place. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied the decision of Dr. G.D. Harsh v. Rajasthan Seed Certification Agency RLR 1989(1) RLR 775 where it was observed that the transfer orders are administrative in nature. The administrative or executive orders do not vitiate if passed at the instance or direction of higher authorities unlike judicial or quasi judicial order. 10. The decision of Kishan Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.. RLR 1993(1) 409 , was also cited where it was held by this Court that the grounds of malafide and political interference have to be specifically alleged and proved. In this case the decision of Mrs. Shilpi Bose & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1991 SC 532 has also been considered where it was observed that if the transfer order has been made in the public interest, the employee has no vested right to remain at a particular place and the allegation of malafide and political pressure being clearly vague and without foundation interference cannot be made. On mere decision of a Minister that a particular person should be posted or transferred at a particular place was not considered a case of bias or malice in law (Bhagirath Mal v. State of Rajasthan RLR 1990(2) 561). 11. On mere decision of a Minister that a particular person should be posted or transferred at a particular place was not considered a case of bias or malice in law (Bhagirath Mal v. State of Rajasthan RLR 1990(2) 561). 11. It was,observed by the Apex Court in Bhaskar Chattoraj v. State of W.B. AIR 1991, 532 wherein it has been held that : "the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of malafide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at once place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violative of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest." 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the rejoinder has filed affidavit of Laxman Singh, Chittar Mal Saini, Ashok Goyal, Mool Chand and Surya Kant Sharma and assertions/allegations made in the writ petition with regard to letter dated 1st of May 1995 and 3rd May 1995 have been deposed by these persons. 13. I have considered towards the matter. The file of the respondents was also produced. From the perusal of the file, it is not proved that the two letters referred to above were received by the Minister concerned or the transfer was made by the Director at the directions of the Minister concerned. Even the photo copy of the letters which have been submitted is of the letter which might have been written by Shri Mool Chand Saini and Shri Shashi Kant Sharma and the photo copy was obtained before sending to the Minister concerned. There is no seal of the receipt in the office of the respondents No. 1 & 2. The letters themselves arc not available in the file. There is no seal of the receipt in the office of the respondents No. 1 & 2. The letters themselves arc not available in the file. It may be for the reason that said letters might not have been despatched to the Minister concerned and these persons in order to oblige the petitioner have give the copies. Even after the dispatch of the letter affidavits have been given by the writers of these letter. All these circumstances do not confirms that the letters were received by the Minister concerned unless it is alleged to be personally handed over. It is not proved beyond doubt that the said letters were in fact received by the Minister concerned and the transfer has been made on the basis of the complaint. As a matter of fact, from the perusal of the file, it is evident that it was not the petitioner only but there were other three persons who were transferred in the said order. The . affidavit of respondent No. 3 has also been filed to the effect that he was not instrumental in getting these letters written. The conduct of the petitioner in the present matter cannot he considered to be above hoard in respect of those letters and the affidavit submitted. If the petitioner was working against the interest of Bhartiya Janata Party the two persons including the President of Medical Cell who have allegedly now made a complaint would not have given the affidavit and this appears to have been done to oblige the petitioner. The petitioner have failed to prove the malafide or that the transfer was made at the behest of respondent No. 3 on the basis of the letter dated 1.5.1995 and 3.5.1995 referred to above. 14. In the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no application to the facts of the present case. The transfer at the behest of party office bearers or on political reasons or complaints have not been proved. It has been observed in Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar (1991)11 LLJ 591, 592 (SC) , as follows : "In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with transfer orders which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fides. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of legal rights. Even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead the affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will he complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders." It has been observed in State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh Dhatt, AIR 1993 SC 2486 , Para 3 , as follows : "We have heard learned counsel for the parties. This court time and again expressed its disapproval of the courts below interfering with the order of transfer of public servant from one place to another. It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from his present posting. Ordinarily the court have no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer. The High Court grossly erred in quashing the order of transfer of the respondent from Hoshiarpur to Sangrur. The High Court was not justified in extending its jurisdiction under Article 220 of the Constitution of India in a matter where, on the face of it, no injustice was caused." 15. It has further been observed in Union of India v. S.L. Abbas (1993) 11 LLJ 626, 627 , as follows : "Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the object. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline, however, does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right." 16. The transfer is an incident of service. The Municipal Board elections are also over and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents are not competent to affect the transfer. The plea of malafide which have been raised is only an allegation which have been made in a very vague manner that the respondent No. 3 wanted to get the favour from the petitioner the work to be done in favour of the Bhartiva Janata Party. No specific incidence or data or facts have been stated. A vague allegation cannot take the place of proof. The facts cannot be considered to he proved or established as stated in the writ petition and no case is made out for interference in the extra ordinary jurisdiction. The respondents have clearly stated that the transfer was on account of administrative exigencies and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ramadhar Pandey, I do not consider that it would be appropriate for this court to interfere in such order.The petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.Writ petition dismissed. *******