Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1954 (ALL)

RAM GOPAL v. UNION OF INDIA

2002-12-19

S.P.MEHROTRA

body2002
S. P. MEHROTRA, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,1950 inter-alia, challenging the transfer order dated 10-12-2002 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition ). 2. From the allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner who is Hindi Translator, has been transferred from Meerut to Haldwani on administrative ground. 3. It is well established that the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not normally interfere with the transfer order unless such transfer order is shown to have been issued mala-fide or in violation of statutory rules. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order has been issued with mala-fide intention, and he refers to the averments made in paragraph 5 of the writ petition. A perusal of paragraph 5 of the writ petition shows that only vague and general allegations have been made against the Respondent No. 2. Such vague and general allegations cannot sustain the plea of mala-fide sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. No violation of any statutory rule has been shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner in issuance of the impugned transfer order dated 10-12- 2002. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that this writ petition lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that the petitioner has made a representation dated 11-12-2002 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) to the Respondent No. 3 and the Respondent No. 3 may be directed to decide the said representation. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that the Respondent No. 3 will decide the representation of the petitioner dated 11-12-2002 expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before the Respondent No. 3 alongwith a copy of the said representation dated 11-12-2002. It is made clear that no directions are being given on the merits of the representation as it is for the Respondent No. 3 to take appropriate decision in this regard. 8. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Petition dismissed. .