S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner filed this petition before this court under Article 226 of the constitution of India in which a challenge has been made to the order dt. 19th January 1996 by which he was ordered to be transferred from Surat to Bhavnagar. The order of transfer has been made by the additional Director of Medical Education and Research, Gandhinagar. Under the order dt. 19th January 1996, the petitioner was ordered to be relieved from the post of junior Clerk from New Civil Hospital, surat for joining duty at Medical College, bhavnager. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of transfer of the petitioner is mala fide. The allegation of mala fides has been pleaded in the petition which briefly reproduced hereunder:- ( 2 ) THE petitioners wife is a Social worker. In the last general elections to constitute the Board of Councillors of Surat municipal Corporation which were held in may 1995, she contested the election on a general seat. She was a candidate of congress Party. She lost the election. Bharatiya Janata Party is having majority in the Surat Municipal Corporation as well as in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Gujarat. The office-bearers of Surat municipal Corporation are having grudge against the petitioner and are harassing the petitioner as he is the husband of that lady who had to contest the election of councillors of the Corporation as a congress Party. The staff of Surat Civil hospital and Medical College have formed an Employees Cooperative Society. The society, though initially was engaged in the work of giving loans to its members, but by passage of time, had started a Fair Price consumers Shop. On the request of it, the officer of the Department has permitted to run the Fair Price Shop at Government accommodation, viz. garage of New Civil hospital at Surat. As the office-bearers of surat Municipal Corporation belonging to bharatiya Janata Party, are harassing the petitioner since the petitioners wife was a candidate in the last general election and was supported by the Congress Party. On 25th December 1995, Honble the Minister, respondent No. 4 herein visited the Civil hospital. He was accompanied by respondent No. 3-Geetaben Desai, a Chairperson of the Health Committee of the surat Municipal Corporation. Then respondent No. 3 represented to respondent no. On 25th December 1995, Honble the Minister, respondent No. 4 herein visited the Civil hospital. He was accompanied by respondent No. 3-Geetaben Desai, a Chairperson of the Health Committee of the surat Municipal Corporation. Then respondent No. 3 represented to respondent no. 4 that anyhow the petitioner should be removed from Surat so that once again his wife may not dare to contest the election to fill in the seat of Surat Municipal corporation that may become vacant in future and that the petitioner may learn a lesson. It further appears that in order to make out a case for transferring the petitioner from Surat, she had written some letters to the Dean of the Government medical College, Surat. On the basis of the instructions passed by the Honble minister, the Dean of the Government medical College addressed a letter to the superintendent, New Civil Hospital, Surat and respondent No. 2 issued a letter to the petitioner which is in the form of show- cause notice calling upon him to explain how he has been unauthorisedly doing business and running a fair price shop in the Motor Garage belonging to Government which is situated in Medical Hospital campus and to show cause as to why departmental Proceedings shall not be taken against him. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice on 28th December 1995. On 16th January, 1996, the petitioner submitted one representation through proper channel, as also by sending an advance copy to the additional Director, Medical and Research, bringing to his notice that the complaint by respondent No. 3 is entirely unfounded and that the same has been made since she has been maintaining animosity and malice against the petitioner and his wife and further explaining that since the day the petitioner has joined the service, he has never committed any act unbecoming of a government Servant and that because of this no injustice be meted out to the petitioner. The aforesaid averments are made by the petitioner in Paras 3. 2 to 3. 5. The averments made in Para 4. 1 may also briefly be referred. The petitioner has stated in that para that the episode after the show- cause notice of doing business and running the Fair Price Shop, has been got up only because of the political animosity and bias of respondent No. 3. In Para 4. 2 to 3. 5. The averments made in Para 4. 1 may also briefly be referred. The petitioner has stated in that para that the episode after the show- cause notice of doing business and running the Fair Price Shop, has been got up only because of the political animosity and bias of respondent No. 3. In Para 4. 2, after narration of the facts regarding contest of the election of the Councillors of the corporation by the petitioners wife, it was stated that since she has done good social service, she was sponsored by the Congress party for the relevant ward to contest the election for being elected as Councillor which was held in May 1995. This was not palatable to respondent No. 3 and other members of Bharatiya Janata Party and for this reason to achieve her aim of spreading terror amongst the employees of New Civil hospital and staff of the Medical College, respondent No. 3 at the behest of respondent No. 4 had got the petitioner transferred. In support of this submissions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on three decisions of the Supreme court in the case of (1) Union of India and others v. S. L. Abbas, reported in (1993) 4 scc 357 , (2) N. K. Sing v. Union of India and others reported in 1994 (6) SCC 98 and (3) State of U. P. and Anr. v. V. N. Prasad (Dr.), reported in (1995) Supp 2 SCC 151. ( 3 ) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner filed affidavit in support of the writ petition. The facts stated in Para nos. 3. 2, 3. 3, 3. 4 and 3. 5 were stated to be true to the knowledge of the petitioner and belief. The averments made in Paras 4. 1 and 4. 2 stated to be the grounds which are set out as per advice of the Counsel. The petitioner has not raised any allegation of mala fide against respondent No. 1 who is the authority passed the order of transfer. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 was competent to transfer the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the services of the petitioner is transferrable. The petitioner has not raised any allegation of mala fide against respondent No. 1 who is the authority passed the order of transfer. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 was competent to transfer the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the services of the petitioner is transferrable. It is also not in dispute that since the date the petitioner entered in the service, he is staying at one place, i. e. Surat, but the petitioner has stated that the transfer has been made at the behest of respondent No. 3. Respondent no. 3 is a person said to have malice or animosity against the petitioner for the reason that his wife had contested the election of the Councillor from one of the parties at Surat for Surat Municipal corporation. It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioners wife was the candidate against respondent No. 3. But the petitioner has stated that the petitioners wife was a candidate of the Congress Party and to see that in future she may not dare to contest the election, respondent No. 3 has started animosity against the petitioner and further started harassing him, though respondent No. 3 is not a transferring authority. Otherwise also the allegation which has been made in this writ petition against respondent No. 3 does not constitute mala fide. They ate far fetched allegation which is very easy to make for the purpose of making a ground of malice and challenge of the order of the transfer. Bharatiya Janata Party and Congress Party are the two political parties and I failed to see any justification in the grievance of the petitioner that he has been got transferred by respondent No. 3 so that his wife may not contest the election in future. How contesting the election by the petitioners wife and transfer of the petitioner has any relevancy. Even after transferring the petitioner to Bhavnagar, the petitioners wife can contest the election or any other candidate can be sponsored by the Congress party for contesting the election from a particular ward and so far as show-cause notice to start disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner is concerned, it is quite different subject and the enquiry has not been initiated so far. In case, if the petitioner has committed some misconduct or in case the Department considers the act of the petitioner to run a fair price shop at the Government garage to be a misconduct, then that will go separately which had no nexus whatsoever or can be taken out in between that action and transfer of the petitioner. Further detail which has been given that respondent No. 3 has got the petitioner transferred to create terror amongst the employees of New Civil hospital, has no nexus whatsoever with the transfer of the petitioner. The petitioner has contended that respondent No. 3 at the behest of respondent No. 4 has got the petitioner transferred which is difficult to believe. Moresoever these allegations made by the petitioner in Para 4. 2 are not within his knowledge but set out as per advice of the Counsel. In the absence of any allegation of malice against the transferring authority, it is too difficult to draw inference of malice against the said authority on the basis of the averments made in writ petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N. K. Sing v. Union of India and Others, reported in (1994) SCC 98 contended that the allegation of mala fides have been made by the petitioner on affidavit and as such without calling counter-affidavit to rebut, then the petition should not be dismissed in limine. In Para 21 of the aforesaid decision in the case of N. K. Sing (supra), the supreme Court observed as follow:-"we may observe that we do not approve of the manner in which the Tribunal proceeded to decide the case. Allegations of mala fides having been made by the appellant on affidavit, it is difficult to fathom how the Tribunal rejected them without even requiring a counter-affidavit to rebut them. The Tribunals perception that the allegations made on affidavit by the appellant even without any rebuttal do not constitute the plea of mala fide, is obviously incorrect. The Tribunal also did not appreciate the true extent of scrutiny into such a matter and the grounds on which a transfer is judicially reviewable. The conclusion we have reached in the present case is for the reasons given by us and not those which impelled the Tribunal to reject the appellants claim. The Tribunal also did not appreciate the true extent of scrutiny into such a matter and the grounds on which a transfer is judicially reviewable. The conclusion we have reached in the present case is for the reasons given by us and not those which impelled the Tribunal to reject the appellants claim. " ( 4 ) IN the present case, as earlier stated, the petitioner has not made any allegation of inaia tides against the authority who transferred him. The allegation of mala fides has been made against respondent No. 3 who is not transferring authority or she is not connected in any manner whatsoever with the Medical Education and Research department, Gandhinagar, Government of gujarat. Moreover, the allegations of mala fides are made by the petitioner, though on affidavit but it is difficult to rely. The allegations made in Paras 3. 2 to 3. 5 cannot be relied as same were verified on the basis of knowledge and belief in affidavit. On such an defective affidavit, it is not advisable and desirable to accept the allegations of mala fide, made moreso when the petitioner has not made any allegation of mala fide against the authority who transferred him. So far as averments made in Paras 4. 1 and 4. 2 are concerned, those are not made by the petitioner on oath but those are said to be the grounds set out as per the advice given by the Counsel. In view of these facts, the allegations of mala fide made against respondents Nos. 3 and 4 cannot be accepted. Looking to the verification of averments made in writ petition in the affidavit, I do not consider it to be a fit case where the counter should be called for from the respondents. As in the case of N. S. Singh (supra), the Supreme court has held that unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer, which along can be scrutinised judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinising all transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of all government departments. Here in the present case where the petitioner is working at Surat from the date of his appointment in september 1981 and it is also transferable post. Here in the present case where the petitioner is working at Surat from the date of his appointment in september 1981 and it is also transferable post. In the matter of transfer of the petitioner from the station where he is serving for 14 years and more so when against the vacant post lying at Bhavnagar, there is nothing in it to suggest that it is unusual. In the case of N. S. Singh, the supreme Court further observed that in the matter of transfer, no roving inquiry into the matter is called for or justified witnin the scope of judicial review of a transfer scrutinised with reference to the private rights of an individual. In that case, the supreme Court has not accepted the ground of mala fide on which transfer has been challenged by observing that "there is thus no basis to accept the appellants contention that his transfer was occasioned by mala fide of the then Prime Minister on account of his annoyance with the appellant or that it was in any manner contrary to the requirements of the Tenure Rules". ( 5 ) IN the case of S. L. Abbas (supra), the supreme Court held that "an order of transfer is an incident of Government service. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it". In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court laid down that if the transfer order is questioned on the ground of mala fides, the mala fide has to be established to the satisfaction of the court which the petitioner in the present case has failed to do. I have gone through the judgment in the case of State of U. P. and Another v. V. N. Prasad (Dr.), I failed to see how thie judgment helps the petitioner. In this case, the respondent challenged the order of transfer on the ground of mala fides and the High Court stayed the operation thereof. Against interim order of the High Court, the State of U. P. has taken the matter to the Supreme court and the order of the High Court has been set aside. In this case, the respondent challenged the order of transfer on the ground of mala fides and the High Court stayed the operation thereof. Against interim order of the High Court, the State of U. P. has taken the matter to the Supreme court and the order of the High Court has been set aside. The Supreme Court has observed that we are of the opinion that at the stage at which the matter was brought to engage the attention of the High Court, there was no prima facie material to establish any mala fides which required strong and convincing evidence. The presumption is in favour of the bona fides of the order unless contradicted by acceptable material. Exactly what are lacking in the present case. Taking into consideration, the matter from any angle, I do not find any case for interference of this court in the order of transfer of the petitioner. Writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. .