Order:-This petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.6.2001 of the second respondent/ General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Natham Branch) Ltd., Dindukal District, bearing Ref.Admn.No.P1 345, cancelling the transfer order of the petitioner from Periyakulam Branch to the first respondent/ the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Natham Branch) Ltd. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that he joined in the first respondent Transport Corporation, which was originally known as Pandian Transport Corporation, on 13.05.1992 as a Conductor on permanent basis at Ellis Branch Madurai. In the year 2000 he was elected as an Executive Committee Member of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Workers Union and it is affiliated to the Labour Progressive Federation, a Wing of the DMK Party. He was instrumental in mobilising the work force and espousing the cause of its members, whenever injustice was done to them. He has further stated that the petitioner had worked as an agent of the DMK party and canvassed in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elections at E.Pudhupatti Village in Periyakulam Constituency. He was actively supporting DMK party. At the instance of the third respondent, the second respondent/the General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Natham Branch) Ltd., Dindukal District has passed the impugned order with a mala fide intention for political consideration. The petitioner has further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without any administrative reasons and it is punitive in nature. It is further submitted that the third respondent visited E.Pudhupatti village on 11.06.2001 to attend a wedding function and after that, he met the AIADMK Party workers. At that time, the third respondent instigated Mr.Arivalagan, Honorary President of AIADMK political party of E.Pudhupatti village to transfer the petitioner to some other place. At the instigation of the third respondent, the President contacted the Managing Director, the second respondent herein, over phone to transfer the petitioner to some other place. At his instance, the impugned order has been passed by the second respondent/General Manager of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Natham Branch), Ltd. Aggrieved by the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3.In support of his contentions, the petitioner has relied on a news item published in Tamil Daily “Dinakaran” on 24.06.2001. 4.While entertaining this writ petition, this Court has ordered interim stay of the operation of the order passed by the second respondent/Transport Corporation on 28.06.2001. 3.In support of his contentions, the petitioner has relied on a news item published in Tamil Daily “Dinakaran” on 24.06.2001. 4.While entertaining this writ petition, this Court has ordered interim stay of the operation of the order passed by the second respondent/Transport Corporation on 28.06.2001. 5.Refuting the allegations, learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that Mr.E.Jeyabalan was transferred from Periuakulam Branch to Palani-I Branch and that Mr.P.Paulpandian was transferred from Periyakulam Branch to Natham Branch. He further submitted that the appointment order clearly states that the petitioner is liable to be transferred to any place within the jurisdiction of the Corporation as considered necessary, in exigencies of service. According to him, transfer of the petitioner was done in a routine manner, and therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the same and prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition. 6.Denying the allegations made against him, the third respondent has submitted that he is not aware of the fact that the petitioner was an Executive Committee Member of the DMK Union and that he had acted as an agent of the DMK candidate at E.Pudhupatti Village in Periyakulam Constituency. He has no knowledge of the reasons for transfer. He has also denied the contention of the petitioner that he instigated Thiru Arivalagan, Honorary President of AIADMK Political party of E.Pudhupatti village for the petitioner’s transfer and that the said individual contacted the second respondent over phone and therefore the second respondent/the General Manager, Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation, (Palani Division-I) Ltd. Palani, Dindigul District transferred the petitioner. The third respondent has specifically denied the telephonic conversation also. He has further submitted that the allegations made by the petitioner against him have not been established by any materials. Hence prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 8.The transfer order passed by the second respondent reads as follows: TAMIL NADU STATE TRPT.CORPN (MADURAI. DIVISION. IV) LTD: DINDIGUL: PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT: Ref: Admn:P1:345 Dt:14.06.2001 OFFICE ORDER Thiru P. Paulpandian, Conductor, St.No.62460, Periyakulam Branch is transferred and posted to work at Natham Branch. He shall report for duty before the Branch Manager i/c, Natham Branch immediately. (signed) for GENERAL MANAGER To: Individual. 9. Pleadings disclose that the cause of action for filing the writ petition is a news item published in a news paper. He shall report for duty before the Branch Manager i/c, Natham Branch immediately. (signed) for GENERAL MANAGER To: Individual. 9. Pleadings disclose that the cause of action for filing the writ petition is a news item published in a news paper. In this context, it is necessary to extract few judgments of the Supreme Court dealing with the question as to whether newspaper reports can be taken as evidence for the purpose of adjudication. 10.The question of admissibility of the newspaper reports came up for consideration in Samant N.Balkrishna And Another VS. George Fernandez and others reported in 1969 3 SCC 238 at paragraph 26, wherein the Apex Court observed as follows: ”A newspaper item without any further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is of no value. It is at best a second hand evidence. It is well known that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publish it. In this process truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible.” 11.The Supreme Court in Lakmi Raj Shetty And Another VS. State Of Tamil Nadu reported in 1988 (3) SCC 319 , opined thus: ”...We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspaper is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein.” 12.In Quamarul Islam VS. S.K.Kants reported in 1994 (1) SCC 452, the question as to whether mere production of a copy of the newspaper, be treated as proof of the report of the speech (news item) contained therein, came up for consideration. The Apex Court in Paragraph 48 of the judgment held as follows: ”Newspaper reports by themselves are not evidence of the contents thereof. Those reports are only hearsay evidence. These have to be proved and the manner of proving a newspaper report is well settled. The Apex Court in Paragraph 48 of the judgment held as follows: ”Newspaper reports by themselves are not evidence of the contents thereof. Those reports are only hearsay evidence. These have to be proved and the manner of proving a newspaper report is well settled. Since, in this case, neither the reporter who heard the speech and sent the report was examined nor even his reports produced, the production of the newspaper by the Editor and publisher, PW4 by itself cannot amount to proving the contents of the newspaper reports. Newspaper, is at the best secondary evidence of its contents and is not admissible in evidence without proper proof of the contents under the Indian Evidence Act. The learned trial Judge could not treat the newspaper reports as duly ‘proved’ only by the production of the copies of the newspaper. The election petitioner also examined Abrar Razi, PW5, who was the polling agent of the election petitioner and a resident of the locality in support of the correctness of the reports including advertisements and messages as published in the said newspaper. We have carefully perused his testimony and find that his evidence also falls short of proving the contents of the reports of the alleged speeches or the messages and the advertisements, which appeared in different issues of the newspaper. Since, the maker of the report which formed basis of the publications, did not appear in the court to depose about the facts as perceived by him, the facts contained in the published reports were clearly inadmissible. No evidence was led by the election petitioner to prove the contents of the messages and the advertisements as the original manuscript of the advertisements or the messages was not produced at the trial. No witness came forward to prove the receipt of the manuscript of any of the advertisements or the manuscript of any of the advertisements or the messages or the publications of the same in accordance with the manuscript. No witness came forward to prove the receipt of the manuscript of any of the advertisements or the manuscript of any of the advertisements or the messages or the publications of the same in accordance with the manuscript. There is no satisfactory and reliable evidence on the record to even establish that the same were actually issued by IUML or MYL, ignoring for the time being, whether or not the appellant had any connection with IUML or MYL or that the same were published by him or with his consent by any other person or published by his election agent or by any other person with the consent of his election agent.” 13. As declared by the Apex Court in the cases, stated supra, a newspaper report cannot be taken as concrete evidence to question an order of transfer. A petition based on unconfirmed news report, without verifying its authenticity is not maintainable. Except the bald allegations of the petitioner that a news item was published in the newspaper regarding his transfer, no materials have been placed before this Court to support the said allegations. The allegations are unfounded and baseless. In the light of the decisions stated supra this Court is of the considered view that there is no ground to interfere with the transfer order passed by the second respondent. The writ petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted by this Court is also vacated. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.No.17434 of 2001 is closed.