JUDGEMENT Shiva Kirti Singh and Birendra Prasad Verma JJ. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the State and its officials who are & B.P. Verma, JJ appellants in LP.A. No. 925 of 2006. Nobody appears on behalf of the writ petitioner, respondent No. 1 or on behalf of respondent No. 2 who is the appellant in other appeal and who was transferred and posted in place of respondent No. 1 on the post of Circle Officer, Patna Sadar. 2. The writ petitioner had challenged notification dated 1-9-2006 whereby respondent No. 2 of this appeal was posted in his place as Circle Officer, Patna Sadar and writ petitioner was transferred as such to Dumraon, Buxar 3. It was pleaded on behalf of the writ petitioner that the transfer was not in administrative exigency but to any how accommodate respondent No. 2 at Patna. The writ court appears to have interfered on the ground that the authorities of the State Government could not disclose special reason behind such individual transfer which was not a part of any chain transfer. 4. Learned Counsel for the State has submitted that the writ court should not have looked into any special reason when it was clear that there was a requirement to post respondent No. 5 of the writ petition and the writ petitioner was also due for posting. If there was need to post the writ petitioner at a place different from Patna where he had completed his tenure, he could not have raised any grievance of the nature as to why a particular person had been posted at Patna. He further submitted that no mala fide was alleged against any of the authorities nor the same has been found true and hence no interference should have been made by the court. 5. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents to oppose this appeal. The reason appears to be an order of stay of the order under appeal granted by this Court on 12-4-2007. At that time it had been noticed that respondent No. 5 of the writ petition had already joined the post at Patna. That appears to be the reason why the private respondents, both being employees of the State of Bihar, have lost their interest in the appeal. 6. Since there is no opposition to this appeal, it is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. That appears to be the reason why the private respondents, both being employees of the State of Bihar, have lost their interest in the appeal. 6. Since there is no opposition to this appeal, it is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. L.P.A. No. 868 of 2006 7. This appeal is also directed against the same Judgment and Order passed in C.WJ.C. No. 10903 of 2006 which has been set aside in L.P.A. No. 925 of 2006 preferred by the State of Bihar and others. In that view of the matter this appeal has to be dismissed. Since nobody has appeared on behalf of appellants or the private respondent and only learned Counsel for the State has appeared, it is dismissed for non-prosecution.