G. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the order of transfer dated 8. 8. 2001 by which the petitioner was transferred from district Chandauli to lucknow and was attached with the office of Transport Commissioner. U. P. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was previously working as Incharge Assistant Regional Transport Officer at varanasi but he was transferred to the headquarters at Lucknow on 20. 4. 2001. On 15. 6. 2001, he was again transferred as Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement), Chandauli. By the impugned order dated 8. 8. 2001, he was transferred to Lucknow and was attached to the headquarters. ( 3 ) SRI. T. P. Singh has submitted that the petitioner has been transferred several times within a brief period which was contrary to the policy and the guidelines laid down by the State government by the Government Order dated 21. 4. 2001, a copy of which has been filed as annexure-9 to the writ petition. The Government Order lays down the guidelines which have to be followed in the matter of transfer of Government employees and paragraph 6 thereof provides that as far as possible, no transfer order should be passed after 15. 6. 2001. It appears that this policy has been formulated keeping in view the academic session in the institutions in the State which normally begin in the first or second week of July. The power of the Court to interfere with an order of transfer of a Government servant in a writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution has been considered by the Apex Court in Mrs. Shlipi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532 , and para 4 thereof reads as follows : "in our opinion, 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 mala fide. 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 his legal rights. 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 his 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 affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-today 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. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders. " in Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh Mehta, (1992) 1 SCC 306 , the Court after considering the effect of the guidelines issued in the matter of transfer observed as follows :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No doubt the guidelines require the two spouses to be posted at one place as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not consider it feasible. . . . . " the effect of the guidelines were again considered in Union of India v. S. L. Abbas, AIR 1993 sc 2444 . and after taking note of the aforesaid observations made in Bank of India v. Jagjit singh Mehta, (supra), the Court held as follows in para 10 of the reports : "the said observations in fact tend to negative the respondents contentions instead of supporting them. The judgment also does not support the respondents contention that if such an order is questioned in a Court or the Tribunal, the authority is obliged to justify the transfer by adducing the reasons therefor. It does not also say that the Court or the Tribunal can quash the order of transfer if any of the administrative instructions/ guidelines are not followed, much less can it be characterised as mala fide for that reason. To reiterate, the order of transfer can be questioned in a Court or Tribunal only where it is passed mala fide or where it is made in violation of the statutory provisions. To reiterate, the order of transfer can be questioned in a Court or Tribunal only where it is passed mala fide or where it is made in violation of the statutory provisions. " thus, the law is well-settled that an order of transfer can be questioned on very limited grounds and if such an order is questioned in a Court, the State is not obliged to justify the order of transfer by adducing the reasons therefor. It is not the case of the petitioner that his transfer is contrary to any statutory provision nor any such contention has been raised during the course of hearing of the petition. Even assuming that the transfer order is contrary to the policy, the same cannot be struck down by this Court in a writ petition. ( 4 ) SRI T. P. Singh has next contended that the petitioner had been rendering a very good service at Chandaull as during his tenure, he checked a large number of vehicles and realised more revenue for the State. He has further urged that on account of the strict measures adopted by the petitioner, certain political persons felt aggrieved and he was transferred on their behest. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on some documents which show that the transport department earned more revenue in June-July, 2001 as compared to the amount realised in the same period in the year 2000. Some figures have also been given regarding the number of vehicles which were checked and thereafter seized and challaned by the petitioner. The State has filed several counter-affidavits wherein it is averred that by the mere fact that more revenue was earned by the department in June-July. 2001. no inference can be drawn that the same was on account of any exceptional measures adopted by the petitioner. The counter affidavits filed by the State show that the fee structure had been enhanced and had undergone a substantial change after March, 2001 and, therefore, realisation of revenue thereafter, i. e. , in the months June-July, 2001 was bound to be more than what it was in the corresponding period of the year 2000. We have examined various affidavits and they do show that there was amendment in the fee structure in March. 2001 and this was bound to result in automatic enhancement in the amount realised by the department. We have examined various affidavits and they do show that there was amendment in the fee structure in March. 2001 and this was bound to result in automatic enhancement in the amount realised by the department. Certain other features have also been stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the state. A system of Golden Pass was introduced with effect from 1. 8. 2001 and the period of its validity was three months. This system resulted in very substantial increase in the revenue in the month of August when the transport operators obtained the Golden Pass. Figures have also been given regarding the income from this source in September and October where there was a decline and reason being that the Golden Pass remains valid for three months and those who had taken a Golden Pass in August were not required to pay anything further in the months of september and October. The assertion of the petitioner is that he had checked a large number of vehicles during the short period he was posted at Chandauli which showed that he was rendering a good job. This assertion is denied by the respondent-State. it is stated in the counter-affidavit that the Transport Commissioner, U. P. personally came to Chandauli and organised a special checking drive for two days i. e. , on 29th and 30th July in which 252 vehicles were seized. However, in the remaining 28 days i. e. , from 1st to 28th July, when the petitioner alone was the incharge and was responsible for checking of vehicles, the total number of vehicles seized was 176. Therefore, these facts clearly show that the assertion of the petitioner that he had been doing very good work or that on account of his efforts, realisation of the revenue by the State was substantially higher than in the corresponding period of the previous year is not correct. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention to certain letters written by the district Magistrate, Chandauli. wherein he had stated that the work of the petitioner was praise-worthy, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, these letters have been clarified and it has been stated that the District Magistrate had written the letters only on the basis of the figures given by the petitioner himself which did not. give the complete picture. wherein he had stated that the work of the petitioner was praise-worthy, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, these letters have been clarified and it has been stated that the District Magistrate had written the letters only on the basis of the figures given by the petitioner himself which did not. give the complete picture. On the facts which have been stated in the three counter-affidavits filed by the State. It is not possible for us to hold that the petitioner alone was responsible for increase in revenue of the state or that seizing of large number of vehicles in the month of July, 2001 were on account of his solitary effort. ( 6 ) SRI T. P. Singh has strenuously urged that strict and good measures adopted by the petitioner resulted in seizing of a large number of vehicles and this caused annoyance to those who were operating transport vehicles in flagrant violation of the rules. A local politician felt aggrieved by the seizing of vehicles and he made complaint against the petitioner and as a result whereof, he has been transferred. It is thus contended that the transfer order has been passed for mala fide reasons. Reliance is also placed on a decision of this Court on C. P. Arora v. State of U. P. . 1995 (3) AWC 1905 wherein it has been held that ordinarily no interference in writ jurisdiction is called for in the matter of transfers but where it appears that same are made in colourable exercise of powers or are actuated with malice or are made frequently within a short span of time, the Court would not lag behind in quashing such transfer orders. Along with the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner has filed a letter purported to have been written by the president of local unit of Bhartiya Janta Party to the Chief Secretary and also a photo copy of a letter purported to have been written by a local M. L. A. to the Chief Minister wherein a complaint has been made against the petitioner regarding his making of money by illegally detaining the vehicles and working contrary to the rules. Learned counsel has contended that the impugned order of transfer had been passed on the basis of the complaint made by the aforesaid political people and consequently, it is liable to be struck down on the ground of mala fide. ( 7 ) WE have given our careful consideration to the submission made. We are clearly of the opinion that from the mere fact that a Government servant is transferred on the basis of a complaint made by an M. L. A. or M. P. , or a leader of the political party, it cannot be held that the same is mala fide and the transfer order cannot be struck down on the said ground alone without there being anything more. An M. L. A. or M. P. is the representative of the people and common public has access to him. Often it is very difficult for a common man to meet the higher officers and to bring to their notice the misdeeds or the wrong way of functioning of a Government servant at a lower level it is not possible for a common man to go to the capital of the State, namely, Lucknow, and then to meet the higher officers to lodge a complaint against the wrong manner of functioning of a Government servant. The M. L. A. and M. P. visit their constituency frequently and meet the members of the public. It is far easier for the public to lodge a complaint against the improper functioning of a Government servant with their representative, namely, the m. L. A. or M. P. of the area than with the higher officers. If in such circumstances, the M. L. A. or m. P. takes up the matter and brings to the notice of the higher officers or the Minister of the concerned department about the misdeeds of a Government servant no exception can be taken to such a course of action. The representatives of the people (M. L. A. and M. P.) hold responsible constitutional position and there ts no presumption that whenever they draw attention to the misdeeds of a Government servant, they do so with mala fate intention. A transfer order passed soon after a letter or complaint lodged by M. L. A. or M. P. or a political person cannot be branded as having been done at the dictate of such a person. A transfer order passed soon after a letter or complaint lodged by M. L. A. or M. P. or a political person cannot be branded as having been done at the dictate of such a person. There is no presumption that the authority passing the transfer order has not applied his independent mind. It is quite likely that the authority was not aware of the situation and after the full and correct facts were brought to his notice, he decides to take appropriate action on objective consideration. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that without there being anything more, the mere fact that a transfer order has been passed soon after a complaint has been sent by an M. L. A. or M. P. or a political person to the Minister or superior officers of the concerned department. It cannot be branded as having been passed without application of mind or on the dictate of a political person. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the concerned M. L. A. or leader of the political party had any personal animosity with the petitioner or that they had made complaint against him on account of any oblique motive for some personal gain. There is no material to show that any action taken by the petitioner in the discharge of his official duty has caused any personal injury to the President of B. J. P. or to the local M. L. A. In these circumstances, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. ( 8 ) THERE are some important features which point towards the correctness of the allegations made against the petitioner and also justify the impugned transfer order. In the counter-affidavit filed to the rejoinder-affidavit (sworn by Dr. Rajendra Prasad) and filed in Court on 9. 11. 2001, the details of the postings held by the petitioner are given as under: (i) The petitioner was originally employed as Junior Engineer in U. P. Bridge Corporation; (ii) He came on deputation in the Transport Department as Regional Inspector (Tech.) on 24. 2. 1994; (iii) The petitioner became Regional Inspector (Tech.) on 1. 11. 1996 and was made Incharge assistant Regional Transport Officer on 14. 5. 1998; (iv) From 24. 11. 1994 to 30. 11. 1994, he worked as Regional Inspector (Tech.), Varanasi; (v) Again during the period 31. 1. 2. 1994; (iii) The petitioner became Regional Inspector (Tech.) on 1. 11. 1996 and was made Incharge assistant Regional Transport Officer on 14. 5. 1998; (iv) From 24. 11. 1994 to 30. 11. 1994, he worked as Regional Inspector (Tech.), Varanasi; (v) Again during the period 31. 1. 1995 to 3. 7. 1998 i. e. . 3-1/2 years, he worked as Regional inspector (Tech. ). Varanasl; (vi) From 4. 7. 1998 to 5. 5. 1999, he worked as Incharge Assistant Regional Transport Officer, sonbhadra; (vii) Worked as Incharge Assistant Regional Transport Officer. Varanasi during the period 6. 6. 1999 to 20. 4. 2001; (viii) From 30. 4. 2001 to 15. 6. 2001 (45 days) remained posted as Incharge Assistant Regional transport Officer attached with headquarters at Lucknow; (ix) From 16. 6. 2001 to 8. 8. 2001 worked as Incharge Assistant Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement), Chandaull; (x) On 8. 8. 2001 he was transferred to Lucknow and was attached with the headquarters. Chandauli was previously a subdivision of district Varanasi and about three years back, it has been made a separate district. The area is not developed at all and even the basic amenities are not available. But the important fact is that the National Highway No. 2 (Delhi-Calcutta Grand trank Road) passes through Chandauli and Chandauli is the border between U. P. and Bihar. This place is very important for the Transport Department. It is averred in the counter-affidavit that 16% of the entire revenue earned by the Department from the various entry points in the whole of U. P. comes from the entry point at Chandauli. Sonebhadra is also adjoining district of chandauli and Varanasi. It is also averred in the counter-affidavit that when the petitioner was transferred from Varanasi on 20. 4. 2001 he joined at Lucknow 10 days later on 30. 4. 2001. However, when he was transferred from Lucknow to Chandauli on 15. 6. 2001, he Joined there on the very next day, i. e. , on 16. 6. 2001. After he was transferred on 8. 8. 2001, from Chandauli to lucknow, he did not give his Joining report within the period allowed under the Rules. He gave his joining report at Lucknow much later along with the stay order dated 27. 8. 2001 passed in the present writ petition by which the transfer order had been stayed by this Court. 8. 2001, from Chandauli to lucknow, he did not give his Joining report within the period allowed under the Rules. He gave his joining report at Lucknow much later along with the stay order dated 27. 8. 2001 passed in the present writ petition by which the transfer order had been stayed by this Court. Lucknow being the capital city has all the modern facilities and many Government servants are very keen to get a posting there. But the petitioner does not want to remain at Lucknow where he was attached with the headquarters. He wants to remain in a backward place like Chandaull having no facilities as he was holding a field posting at U. P. Bihar border. It is not necessary for us to speculate why the petitioner wants to remain at Chandauli as the reasons are too obvious. ( 9 ) IN view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is dismissed. Stay order is vacated.