The writ petition has arisen and directed against an order dated 23.10.92 passed by the Commissioner, Income Tax, North Eastern Region, Shillong (respondent No.1) transferring the cases of the 14 assessees under the Income Tax Act from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (INV) Circle, Dibrugarh and ITO, Ward I, Tinsukia to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range 2, Jaipur in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The writ petition is presented by Shri Sanwarmal Agarwala, one of the assessees whose case was also transferred alongwith 10 other assessees. The petitioner was assessed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward I, Tinsukia. He was served with a notice dated 13.5.92 under the signature of the Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth. North Eastern Region, Shillong proposing to transfer the jurisdiction of his case under section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961/8B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (INV) Circle, Dibrugarh. The petitioner did not respond to the said notice nor did he receive any intimation from the Income Tax authority on the above notice. Another show cause notice" was issued by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner proposing to transfer the jurisdiction of the case of the petitioner under section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961/8B of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Investigation Circle. Dibmgarh to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Special Range 2. Jaipur (Rajasthan) for administrative convenience. According to the petitioner he was out of station for medical treatment and the said fact was intimated by way of a petition dated 7.10.92 by the Advocate of the petitioner praying for adjournment of hearing and for refixation of the case. It was also contended by the petitioner that since no reason for transfer was shown as administrative convenience, the said show cause notice was vague and too general in nature and therefore he could not make any effective representation with reference to the reasons set out in the show cause notice. The respondent No.1 thereafter by order dated 23.10.92 transferred the case of the petitioner from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, INV Circle. Dibrugarh (Assam) to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Special Range. Jaipur (Rajasthan). The respondent No.1 thereafter by order dated 23.10.92 transferred the case of the petitioner from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, INV Circle. Dibrugarh (Assam) to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Special Range. Jaipur (Rajasthan). The petitioner stated that all the ten other assesses where the members of his family. The legality and validity of the order dated 23.10.92 was assailed in this proceeding as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. 3. The respondent submitted its affidavit denying and disputing the writ petition and further assailed the maintainability of the writ petition. The respondent stated that the writ petitioner was the Managing Director and Chairman of M/s PVP Ltd. Jhotwara Industrial Area. Jaipur. A search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 was conducted on 29.4.92 and 30.4.92 in the residential and business premises of Shri SM Agarwala. The relevant search papers including appraisal report were forwarded by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation). Jaipur to the Income Tax Officer. Ward 1. Tinsukia. since the jurisdiction over the case of Shri SM Agarwala was held by the Income Tax Officer. Ward 1. Tinsukia. Consequent upon the search being conducted in his case in Jaipur, the Income Tax Officer. Ward 1. Tinsukia ceased jurisdiction over e the petitioner as per notification No.3 of 1992-93 dated 8.4.92. The territorial jurisdiction over the search and seizure cases was held by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Investigation) Circle, Dibrugarh as per the said notification. In that view of the matter the issue of notice of transfer dated 13.5.92 became infructuous and therefore no order under section 127 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed. As regards the second notice the respondent admitted that in respect of the petition dated 7.10.92 submitted by the Advocate of the petitioner Shri PL Haritwal who sought adjournment of the hearing on medical ground for furnishing of medical certificate in support of the assertions made therein. The reason for transfer of the case was duly recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax vide Note Sheet No. 18 & 19 of File No.A.3/90-91/B&S/TIN/Pt-II before passing the order of transfer. The Commissioner of Income Tax considered the written statement made by the respective parties in reply to the show cause notice of hearing under section 127 issued to them. The Commissioner of Income Tax recorded the following reasons : "1. The Commissioner of Income Tax considered the written statement made by the respective parties in reply to the show cause notice of hearing under section 127 issued to them. The Commissioner of Income Tax recorded the following reasons : "1. M/s PVP Ltd of which Shri SM Agarwalla is the Managing Partner and Chairman and where the members of his family are interested in one form or other is assessed at Jaipur. 2. Shri SM Agarwalla owns 3 (three) house properties including a farm house at Jaipur or thereabouts. Shri Agarwalla has substantial business interests at Jaipur. By his own admission Shri SM Agarwalla is now.a permanent resident of Jaipur. 3. The search and seizure operations conducted recently in the business and residential premises of Shri SM Agarwalla clearly point to Shri Agarwalla's being the prime mover behind creations a number of family trusts and HUFs which though assessed at Tinsukia, have no substantial business interests in that place. A preliminary study of the search papers and documents show that the trusts and HUFs have stakes in M/s PVP Ltd and other business at Jaipur. 4. For co-ordinated investigation it would be convenient to have the cases centralised at Jaipur." The Department also explained the reasons which necessitated the transfer of the case. It was stated that pursuant to the Warrant of Authorisation issued by the Director of Income Tax (Investigation). Ahmedabad, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 29.4.92 and 30.4.92 in the residential premises of Shri SM Agarwalla, A 12, Dhuleswar Garden, Jaipur. Simultaneous searches were made out at the Farm House of the assessee situated at Heerapura. Ajmer Road, Jaipur and at the factory premises of M/s PVP Ltd, Jhotwara Industrial area, Jaipur wherein the petitioner was the Managing Director and Chairman. 4. The respondent, in its affidavit inter alia enumerated the circumstances which induced the Department to conduct the search and seizure operation mentioned above grounded on the allegation that (i) the company M/s PVP Ltd purchased unaccounted oil and produced ghee out of it which was not reflected in their books of accounts, (ii) they were showing process loss in excess of actual figures thereby generating substantiate unaccounted income, and (iii) they were using mustard oil attracted the excise duty concession. During the search operation various incriminating documents and accounts and valuables including cash, jewellery, silver articles, shares etc were found as detailed below : Description Found (value in rupees) Seized 1. Cash Rs. 4,46,104/- Rs. 4,20,000/- 2. Gold ornaments Rs.26,34,839/- Rs.21,86,000/- 3. Silver ornaments Rs. 4,10,358/- Rs. 2,79,000/- and articles 4. Shares Rs.24,29,000/- Rs.24,29,000/- In the appraisal report, the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Jaipur cited various transactions, revealing undisclosed income/investment of the assessee. One such instance! was pertrayed at paragraph 5 of report, a part of which is extracted below : "M/s PVP Ltd, (earlier known as M/s Premier Vegetable Products Ltd) was originally/beneficially owned and controlled by Jaju family, who sold their controlling interest in the company to Shri SM Agarwal and Shri SS Sharma, commonly known as the SS Group. At the time of transfer of the controlling interest, a memorandum of understanding was drawn up between the Jaju family on one side and SS Group on the other side on 10.6.87 in which details of assets and liabilities and payments made against the transfer of shares were given. A copy of the memorandum of understanding dated 10.6.87 and revised MOU dated 3.1.88 were located and seized during the search of residence of Shri DN Jaju. A copy of the same is enclosed. The MOU gives the complete details regarding the liabilities of the company existing as on the date of signing of the MOU. The figures of these liabilities may be compared with the figures of the liabilities as submitted before the Assessing Officer in the case of PW Ltd. Because I am informed that there may be difference between the two. Statement of Shri SS Sharma was recorded on 15.6.92, about this, wherein he has stated that after the MOU he got out of the deal and the aforesaid amount has been paid by Sj SM Agarwal and his associates only. This fact has also been confirmed by the recipient. Annexure Al S. No.27 of Panchnama dated 29.4.92 in Shri SS Sharma's case is a paper marked as Annexure C. This contains details of payments in cheques as well as cash amounting to Rs.82.67 lacs made to Jaju Group by SS Group from 10.6.87 to 24.12.87. Out of this payment, a sum of Rs.61.05 lacs has been paid in cash. This amount has not been accounted for. Out of this payment, a sum of Rs.61.05 lacs has been paid in cash. This amount has not been accounted for. It may be mentioned that page 48 of the said Annexure is a photo copy of further agreement on 3.1.88 in pursuance of MOU dated 10.6.87. Para 2 of this agreement reads as under : "2. That the SS Group and Jaju Group agrees that the payments shown at Annexure C has been made by the SS Group to Jaju Group in compliance of the memo of understanding dated 10.6.87." In the first statement dated 24.9.92 the assessee has stated that he is not remembering whether the payment was out of declared or undeclared sources. In the subsequent statement dated 8.7.92 recorded under section 131 of the IT Act, 1961 he denied to have made any such payment. In view of the facts discussed above, it is clear that the payment has been made to the Jaju Group out of the books 'by the assessee' from his undisclosed income. This aspect derives support from the statement of the recipient Sh Jaju statement of another party Sh SS Sharma and documents in possession of the department containing Sh DN Jaju in his statement recorded in the wake of the search." 5. The report was comprised of copious illustrations calling upon a co-ordinated enquiry with a view to make a systematic and integrated investigation, a conscious move was made for transfer of the case of Shri SM Agarwalla and his associates from the charge of North Eastern Region to the charge of CIT, Jaipur, the Assessing Officer being Deputy Commissioner. Income Tax. Special Range 2 Jaipur. The respondent No. I after considering all the aspects of the matter and after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee and on consideration of the written submission of the matter, duly passed the order in exercisc of its power conferred under section 127 (2) (a) of/the Act. 6. Mr. AR Barthakur, the learned Advocate General, Nagaland appearing on behalf of the petitioner assisted by Shri P. Barthakur, the learned counsel assailed the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1 transferring the cases of the assessee in purported exercise of power conferred under section 127 (2) (a) of the Act as illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of principle of natural justice. The learned senior counsel submitted that the power of transfer of cases under section 127 of the Act is not arbitrary. The learned senior counsel pointedly brought attention to the scheme of the Act and submitted that the said power was to be exercised justly, fairly after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. 7. Mr. GK Joshi, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. U. Bhuyan. the learned Advocate firstly raised the issue about maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of absence of necessary party, namely. Deputy Commissioner. Income Tax. Special Range Jaipur (Rajasthan), Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Investigation Circle. Dibrugarh. The learned counsel submitted that the cases were transferred to Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Special Range. Jaipur and as a matter of fact the petitioner prayed for a direction prohibiting the Deputy Commissioner. Income Tax, Special Range, Jaipur (Rajasthan), Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Officer. Investigation Circle, Dibrugarh and Income Tax Officer Ward No.1. Tinsukia from proceeding further in the matter. The learned counsel further submitted that on merit also there was no infirmity in the impugned order. The above order was passed due to the administrative convenience after taking into consideration of the relevant consideration. The learned counsel for the Revenue further submitted that case was transferred after taking into consideration the administrative expediency for investigation of the case with full co-ordination and accordingly this case was transferred to Jaipur. Income Tax authorities vis-a-vis the authorities are embodied jurisdiction of those in Chapter XIII of the Act. Section 127 of the Act speaks of the power to transfer cases. The Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner of Taxes or Commissioner are the authorities who are empowered to transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officer subordinate to him or her to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers also subordinate to him after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, whenever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so. Under ^ub-section (1) of section 127 where the Assessing Officer or officers fronf whom the case is to be transferred and the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers to whom the case is to be transferred are not subordinate to the same Director General or / Chief Commissioner or Commissioner. Under ^ub-section (1) of section 127 where the Assessing Officer or officers fronf whom the case is to be transferred and the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers to whom the case is to be transferred are not subordinate to the same Director General or / Chief Commissioner or Commissioner. Under clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 127 where the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner to whom such Assessing Officer are subordinate are in agreement, then the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, whenever it is possible to do so. and after recording his reasons for doing so. pass the order. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 127 enjoins that where the Director General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners aforesaid are not in agreement, the order transferring the case may similarly. be passed by the Board or any other Director General. Chier Commissioner or Commissioner as the Board may by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise in this behalf. The scheme of section 127 (1) and (2) of the Act, envisages a case or cases may be transferred by the authority affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard wherever it is possible and on recording of reasons for doing so. Giving of a reasonable opportunity of being heard is one of the essence of fair play in action and giving of opportunity is the rule and only exception be made wherever it is not possible. The recording of reasons occasioning the order of transfer, is mandatory in content. Assigning of the reason is one of the fundamental facet of Rile of law. The Parliament accordingly insisted on the executive authority for recording of reasons for doing so. In the instant case, the assessee was given opportunity and accordingly they were called upon for hearing. The assessee were intimated for proposal of transfer of jurisdiction of the case under section 127 of the Act from the concerned Income Tax Officer to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Special Range 2, Jaipur. Parties submitted its show cause and objected the transfer on the ground of inconvenience and difficulties. The assessee were intimated about the date of hearing fixed on 15.10.92. The assessee instead of availing opportunity prayed for adjournment. Special Range 2, Jaipur. Parties submitted its show cause and objected the transfer on the ground of inconvenience and difficulties. The assessee were intimated about the date of hearing fixed on 15.10.92. The assessee instead of availing opportunity prayed for adjournment. Instead the Department proceeded with the matter and transferred the case to Jaipur, on the ground of administrative convenience. The Commissioner. Income Tax considered the respective cases including the representation of the assessee and thereafter transferred the case due to administrative convenience. The officer concerned recorded reasons in the file which was already narrated. The word convenience is a noun qualified by an adjective 'administrative'. The word convenience denotes quality of being convenient, suitability. According to Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English language New Revised Edition, convenience amongst other means a convenient situation or a time; advantage or accommodation, anything that saves or simplifies work, adds to one's ease or comfort. An administrative convenience therefore means an advantage or convenience pertaining to administration i.e. in the practical management of the administration. The enquiry revealed, that substantial business interest of the petitioner was at Jaipur, who was the keyman in the bisiness. For a co-ordinating investigation of the cases the Department sought for transfer of the cases on the ground of administrative convenience which will simply its work. 8. The contention of Mr. Joshi. the learned counsel for the Revenue about the maintainability of the writ petition for want of necessary party merits consideration. The case is transferred to Jaipur, Rajasthan at the initiative of Director of Income Tax (Inv) Jodhpur. The petitioner in fact sought for a writ of prohibition and direction against the (1) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Special Range, Jaipur. (2) Assistant Commissiner of Income Tax, Investigation Circle. Dibrugarh. (3) Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 1. Tinsukia from proceeding further in the matter. The above noted authorities are necessary parties. Any decision on the issue raised in the writ petition vitally affects the above authorities. No relief can be granted in the absence of the necessary parties. The petition therefore is liable to be dismissed on the above count alone. 9. I have also considered the merits of the case. The respondent 1 was the person authorised by law to pass the impugned order. He exercised his jurisdiction lawfully after addressing his mind to the relevant aspects of the matter. The petition therefore is liable to be dismissed on the above count alone. 9. I have also considered the merits of the case. The respondent 1 was the person authorised by law to pass the impugned order. He exercised his jurisdiction lawfully after addressing his mind to the relevant aspects of the matter. The Commissioner of Income Tax, North Eastern Region fairly considered the situations. The Commissioner while arriving at his decision took note of the fact that the petitioner is the hub around which business of the assessees revolved. The petitioner apart from owning three house properties, including a farm house at Jaipur or nearabouts, he has substantial business interests at Jaipur. The Commissioner also considered the admission of the petitioner that he has a permanent resident of Jaipur. The petitiom r hough assessed at Tinsukia, didnot have substantial business interest in Tinsukia, Assam. The Trusts and HOT's conceived and organised by the petitioner have stakes in M/s PVP Ltd and other business at Jaipur. The Commissioner therefore reached the conclusion that for an integrated investigation it would be convenient to have cases centralised at Jaipur. The facts those weighed the mind of the Commissioner of Taxes can not be said to be perverse or non existent. The considerations those were taken into consideration by the respondent No. 1 were lawful and cannot be labelled as extraneous. Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is dissimilar from appeals. The Court, while hearing an appeal is concerned with the quality (merit) of the decision, which is appealed to. In judicial review the Court is concerned with the process of decision making. In appeal, the enquiry is directed to ascertain as to whether the decision under appeal is 'right' or 'wrong'? Whereas in judicial review the legality of the decision making process is the core question. On appeal the appellate authority can substitute its own opinion over the opinion of the subordinate authority which is imperssible in judicial review. 10. On over all consideration of the entire matter, the decision making process of the respondent No. 1 could not be faulted. The impugned order was passed justly, fairly lawfully and in the interest of public administration. Good public administration can not keep away but constantly keep in mind the public interest. A good public administration must give due regard to the process of administrative convenience. 11. The impugned order was passed justly, fairly lawfully and in the interest of public administration. Good public administration can not keep away but constantly keep in mind the public interest. A good public administration must give due regard to the process of administrative convenience. 11. Keeping in mind all those factors, I do not consider that this case, in which judicial review is to be made. I would accordingly dismiss the petition which I hereby do. The writ petition is dismissed with costs which is assessed at Rs.5.000/- (Rupees five thousand) only. Rule is discharged.