Judgment :- 1. The petitioner by way of this Public Interest Litigation has sought for a direction upon the first respondent to transfer the third respondent from the post of District Collector cum District Electoral Officer of Madurai District forthwith. 2. The petitioner has stated that he is at present the Deputy Speaker of the Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly and a sitting M.L.A. of Sankakri Constituency in Salem District and a member of the ruling party. According to the petitioner, the third respondent who was the then District Collector of Namakkal District during his tenure made false, vexatious and scurrilous allegations against the petitioner and also stated that the petitioner was guilty of defaming him. According to the petitioner, the third respondent became enimical to the petitioner and the political party to which the petitioner belongs. It is submitted that the third respondent has filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, wherein a prayer has been made to declare Rule 17 of the All India Services Conduct Rules, 1968, as unconstitutional, and in the original application, the third respondent has made certain averments in paragraphs 31 and 33 therein, which reveals that the third respondent has animosity and bias against the petitioner in particular and his political party in general. On the above grounds, the petitioner has sought for transfer of the third respondent from the post of District Collector, Madurai. 3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submission made in the writ petition and submitted that by virtue of the averments contained in paragraph 31 and 33 in the original application in O.A.No.414 of 2011, the third respondent should be forthwith transferred from the post of District Collector, Madurai. The learned Senior counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7720 of 2006 etc. batch dated 31.03.2006. 4. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 5. At the outset, it has to be pointed out that the third respondent is an I.A.S. officer and his services are governed by specific Service Rules framed by the Government of India. The power of transfer has been vested with the competent authority as provided under the Service Rules. 5. At the outset, it has to be pointed out that the third respondent is an I.A.S. officer and his services are governed by specific Service Rules framed by the Government of India. The power of transfer has been vested with the competent authority as provided under the Service Rules. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek for issuance of writ of Mandamus to direct the transfer of the third respondent, which would amount to usurpation of the powers of the competent authority under the relevant Service Rules. Therefore, such a prayer cannot be acceded to. 6. The petitioner's case is that he is a sitting M.L.A. of a constituency in Salem District and he has certain personal grievances against the third respondent and from the averments made in the original application filed by the third respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner contends that the third respondent has got animosity and bias against the petitioner in particular and his political party in general. The original application in O.A.No.414 of 2011 has been filed by the third respondent before a Tribunal, wherein the third respondent has sought for a relief of declaration to declare that Rule 17 of the All India Service Conduct Rules, 1968, as unconstitutional and void. It is seen that the petitioner herein has been impleaded in his personal capacity as the third respondent in the original application, which has been filed before the Tribunal on 07.03.2011. From a perusal of the averments from paragraph 17 of the original application, it appears that the third respondent herein has made certain allegations against the writ petitioner alleging that the petitioner at several times attempted to interfere with the administration and influenced third respondent herein. It is further stated that the petitioner herein instigated the corrupt Government officials to send petitions against the third respondent and he was called upon to respond to those allegations by his higher officers. It is further stated that the petitioner wants the bureaucrats to be corrupt and those officers, who are upright and honest are victimized. It is further stated that the petitioner herein has complained to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister about the third respondent. In the affidavit filed in the writ petition, the petitioner primarily alleges that the third respondent has certain animosity particularly against the petitioner. 7. It is further stated that the petitioner herein has complained to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister about the third respondent. In the affidavit filed in the writ petition, the petitioner primarily alleges that the third respondent has certain animosity particularly against the petitioner. 7. From a perusal of the above, we are not persuaded to infer about any animosity or bias on the part of the third respondent as against any political party. In any event, we do not propose to examine the merits or demerits of the allegations made and it would be open to the petitioner herein to suitably defend himself in the pending original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, in which he is the third respondent. 8. From the facts stated above, it is clearly established that the present writ petition, styled as a public interest writ petition, appears to be a counter blast to the original application filed by the third respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal in which the petitioner herein has been impleaded as the third respondent. Therefore, we hardly see any public interest in this writ petition and prima facie it appears to be a private interest litigation. Hence, for the above reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.