JUDGMENT 1. 1. Apply brakes on the wheels of administration of respondent Corporation', asks the petitioner, calling in question his transfer order dated February 10, 2000. 2. Narrating his past service-history the petitioner averred that initially he joined as Shift Incharge (Spinning) in the year 1983. In the year 1992 he was promoted as Manager (Spinning) and posted at Edward Mills Beawar. Thereafter he was transferred to Udaipur in 1996. Again in 1998 he came back to Beawar. Vide order dated Feb. 10, 2000 respondent No. 1 transferred the petitioner from Mahalaxmi Mills Beawar to Textile Mills Kharar (Punjab) and on Feb. 12, 2000 relieved him, causing hardship to the petitioner as his four daughters and one son are studying at Beawar and it would be difficult to shift the entire family in the middle of the session to a distant place which is 800 kms. away. Medical facilities would also not be available to his wife who is undergoing treatment of a Psychiatrist at Udaipur. According to the petitioner his transfer was made to accommodate one Arun Kumar Santhey working as Deputy Manager (Weaving) and to harass the petitioner who is a Member of Scheduled Caste. No public interest or exigency is discernible from the impugned transfer order. The petitioner was relieved forcibly after two days of the said order which reflects the state of malafide or malice against the petitioner. In view of this it was prayed that the impugned transfer order being illegally unlawful and arbitrary be set aside. 3. The respondents in their reply raised preliminary objections. It was pleaded that the National Textile Corporation is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has made false averment in para No. 1 of the writ petition. The petitioner is not a permanent resident of Ajmer but he is resident of village Bairi, post office Kalyanpur District Kanpur (UP). On the basis of Kanpur address the petitioner has been availing the benefits of LTC etc. It was further pleaded that averments made in respect of Arun Kumar Santhey, Deputy Manager is totally false. The promotion to the post of Manager (Spinning) is made from the persons who are holding the post of Joint Manager (Spinning). Arun Kumar Santhey, who is. It was further pleaded that averments made in respect of Arun Kumar Santhey, Deputy Manager is totally false. The promotion to the post of Manager (Spinning) is made from the persons who are holding the post of Joint Manager (Spinning). Arun Kumar Santhey, who is. Deputy Manager (Spinning) is therefore not entitled to promotion on the post of Manager (Spinning). One B.L. Bhandari, Joint Manager (Spinning) is looking after the work of Manager (Spinning) as such promoting and accommodating Arun Kumar Santhey does not arise at all. The petitioner in the instant petition has sought the relief of mandamus. For seeking relief of mandamus the petitioner has to demonstrate that he had already made representation to the management of the company in respect of the impugned order and the management has rejected his representation or did not respond to it. As the petitioner did not make representation to the management against his transfer order and without serving the notice of demand for justice, the petitioner has rushed to this court, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground. It was also pleaded that the transfer of the petitioner was made due to administrative exigencies. The General Manager, Khrar Textile Mills, Khrar (Punjab) had requested for filling five number of vacancies in different technical categories and accordingly he wrote a letter dated February 1, 2000 to the Chief General Manager in the corporate office. The requirement of posting at Kharar Unit was discussed with the respondent No. 1 and it was approved. In this background the petitioner and one G.C. Singhvi, Assistant Manager (Spinning) were transferred from Beawar and Bijay Nagar. In so far as transfer to other posts required at Kharar they are under consideration. It was also pleaded that at Mahalaxmi Mills Beawar the number of officers in technical d.;partment are in excess to the available work-load and the sanctioned strength. In Spinning Department there are two Joint Managers, two Deputy Managers and four Assistant Managers. Therefore looking to the requirement of filling the post of Manager (Spinning) at Kharar, the petitioner was transferred. Kharar is 10 kms. away from Chandigarh and Chandigarh is having much better medical facilities in comparison to Udaipur or Beawar. In Spinning Department there are two Joint Managers, two Deputy Managers and four Assistant Managers. Therefore looking to the requirement of filling the post of Manager (Spinning) at Kharar, the petitioner was transferred. Kharar is 10 kms. away from Chandigarh and Chandigarh is having much better medical facilities in comparison to Udaipur or Beawar. The petitioner's family can continue to stay with the permission of the respondent in the house occupied by him in the Mills compound at Beawar till such time the petitioner made arrangements for his family at Kharar with house rent facility provided to the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner and his family would not suffer hardship. It was therefore prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. The petitioner submitted rejoinder to the reply reiterating the grounds averred in the writ petition. Three documents have been annexed by the petitioner with the rejoinder. 5. I have heard Mr. Sunil Samadaria, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents and carefully scanned the material on record. 6. Placing reliance on Ganesh Chandra Mukherjee v. National Textile Corporation (West Bengal, Assam, Bihar and Orissa) Ltd. and other, (1983 Lab.I.C. 1790) Mr. Sunil Samadaria urged that the respondent No. 1 is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. It was contended that as petitioner's children are studying in the schools the petitioner could not have been transferred in mid academic term. Reliance was placed on Director of School Education Madras and others v. O. Karuppa Thevan and another, (1994 Suppl. (2) SCC 666) . It was also argued that there are strong and compelling grounds rendering the impugned order improper and unjustified. Reliance was placed on Chief General Manager (Telecom) N.E. Telecom Circle and another v. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee and others, (1995)2 SCC 532 ) and R.N. Sharma v. Union of India, (RLR 1983 page 41) . 7. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and placed reliance on Bharat Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, ( AIR 1988 SC 2181 ) , Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani v. N.M. Shah, Deputy Custodian cum Managing Officer, Bombay, ( AIR 1966 SC 334 ) and Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise, ( AIR 1975 SC 538 ) . 8. 8. I shall first deal the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the respondent. The Calcutta HIgh Court (Hon'ble G.N. Ray J. as he then was) in Ganesh Chandra Mukherjee v. National Textile Corporation (supra) indicated that National Textile Corporation was State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It was held that "although Article 311 has not been made applicable to the employees of the Government Company, Public Undertaking and Autonomous Bodies and Corporation which are instrumentalities of the State, or the Central Government and as such State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, such employees certainly enjoy considerable protection in the matter of their employment and the services of an employee of a Public Undertaking cannot be terminated on the mere . subjective satisfaction of the concerned authority. Any arbitrary or capricious action taken by an authority in such Public Undertaking etc. against an employee of such undertaking can be questioned in a writ proceeding and if such actign is contrary to the service conditions or the rules framed therefor and or is passed arbitrarily capriciously and without following the principles of natural justice the same can be quashed in the writ proceeding. "In so far as the objection in respect of prior representation or notice for demand of justice is concerned, reliance was placed on behalf of the respondents on Lekhraj v. Dy. Custodian (supra). In the said case it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that "a writ of mandamus may be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge that statutory obligation. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep the subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limits of their jurisdictions, any duty or obligation falling upon a public servant out of a contract entered into by him as such public servant cannot be enforced by the machinery of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution." In Amrit Lal v. Collector C.E.C. Revenue (supra) it was observed in para 25 thus:- "25. In the petition of K.N. Kapur and others, we do not even find an assertion that any representation was made against any violation of a petitioner's right. Hence, the rule recognised by this court in Kamni Kumar Das v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC 2060 at page 2065 that a demand for justice and its refusal must precede the filing of a petition asking for direction or Writ of Mandamus, would also operate against the petitioners." 9. A close look of the writ petition demonstrates that no representation or notice for demand of justice was served by the petitioner before institution of the instant writ petition. However, with the rejoinder the petitioner has annexed the representation dated Feb. 17, 2000. The writ petition was filed in this court on Feb. 17, 2000. Ex. 13 is not a carbon copy or photocopy of the original. The date mentioned is in manuscript and this letter does not bear the signature of the receipt department or of any body on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner was expected to give some time to the respondents to consider the transfer order issued by them. Had the petitioner submitted aforequoted representation before filing of the writ petition, he would have incorporated this fact in the 'writ petition. In not mentioning the filing of representation in the writ petition, I am of the view that the representation was submitted after filing of the writ petition and the ratio of Amrit Lal v. Collector C.E.C. Revenue (supra) is applicable in the instant case. However, without entering into the technical controversy raised on behalf of the respondents I would like to examine the merits of the case. 10. The petitioner has annexed with the writ petition his order of appointment dated January 21, 1983 (Ex. 1). Condition No. 6 of the said appointment order reads thus:- "6. You are liable to be transferred anywhere in India in any position within the Corporation or its mills or NTC Holding Company or its subsidiaries......" 11. In Chief General Manager, (Telecom) v. Rajendra Ch. Bhattacharjee and others (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded that the "transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and compelling grounds rendering the transfer order improper and unjustifiable." 12. Bhattacharjee and others (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded that the "transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and compelling grounds rendering the transfer order improper and unjustifiable." 12. In view of the above ratio, I have to examine as to whether the impugned transfer order is improper or unjustifiable. Annexure R/3 is a letter written by the General Manager Kharar Textile Mills Kharar to the Chief General Manager (Tech.) NTC (DP&H) Ltd. New Delhi. In this letter a request was made to transfer atleast two officers of the level of Asstt. Manager (Spg.). Short-fall of one Manager (Sprig.), two Deputy Manager (Spg.) and one Asstt. Manager (Spg.) was stated in the said letter. Mr. Sunil Samadaria strongly canvassed that when two Assistant Managers (Spng.) were required why the petitioner was transferred. The transfer of the petitioner was against the requirement. Refuting the argument, Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, contended that requirement of one Manager (Spng.) was shown and word `atleast' was used which shows that atleast two Assistant Managers (Spg.) were urgently required, therefore it does not mean that Manager (Spg.) was not required at all. 13. Mr. Sunil Samdaria also brought to the notice of the court the hardship caused to the petitioner and his family during mid academic session. In Director` of School Education, Madras and others v. 0. Karuppa Thevan and another (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated thus:- "No law requires an employee to be heard before his transfer when the authorities make the transfer for the exigencies of administration. However, the learned counsel for the respondent, contended that in view of the fact that respondent's children are studying in school, the transfer should not have been effected during mid-academic term. Although there is no such rule, we are of the view that in effecting transfer, the fact that the children of an employee are studying should be given due weight, if the exigencies of the service are not urgent. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant unable to point out that there was such urgency in the present case that the employee could not have been accommodated till the end of the current academic year. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant unable to point out that there was such urgency in the present case that the employee could not have been accommodated till the end of the current academic year. We therefore, while setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal, direct that the appellant should not effect the transfer till the end of the current year." 14. In the instant case it was vehemently urged on behalf of the respondents that transfer of the petitioner was made in the exigencies of administration and looking to the urgency at Khrar Textile Mills Khrar the petitioner was transferred. 15. Mr. Sunil Samdaria, also contended that relieving the petitioner after two days of the transfer order reflects state of malafide and malice against the petitioner. It is difficult to agree with this submission. The petitioner was relieved in pursuance of the transfer order dated Feb. 10, 2000 and I do not see any malice in relieving the petitioner after issuance of the transfer order. 16. After looking into the background and appreciating all the circumstances which resulted in the order of transfer, I am satisfied that it is not based on malafides. According to the conditions of service, the petitioner can be transferred anywhere in India in any position within the Corporation or its mills or NTC holding company to its subsidiaries. It is well settled that the wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and the courts are not expected to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring the officers to proper places. It is for the administration to take appropriate decision and such decision shall stand unless they are vitiated either by malafides or by extraneous consideration. 17. In view of what I have discussed herein above, I find no merit in the writ petition, it is accordingly dismissed. However in the interest of justice, the 5 respondents are directed to allow the petitioner's family to stay in the house occupied by him in the Mill compound till such time the petitioner made his arrangements of stay and the examinations of the petitioner's children are over with facility of house rent benefits. If the petitioner's wife requires any medical help, it shall be provided to her by the respondents. Costs easy.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******