Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 830 (GAU)

Ranjit Kumar Dutta v. State of Assam

2015-07-14

K.SREEDHAR RAO, P.K.SAIKIA

body2015
JUDGMENT K. Sreedhar Rao, J. The contesting respondent who was working as Forest Ranger at the Guwhati Range in the Kamrup east division is transferred to the Protection Range in the same division, while the appellant is transferred from Sonapur Range to Guwahati Range in place of the contesting respondent. In the transfer order in question there are ten other transfers effected in public interest. The contesting respondent challenged the order of transfer in WP(C) 2047/2015 on the ground of legal malice and also that the transfer is not effected in accordance with law and without the approval from the Chief Minister. The learned Single Judge upheld the contention and allowed the writ petition. Appellant has been relieved and has joined the place of posting in Guwahati in place of the contesting respondent. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge the appellant has filed this appeal. 2) The counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge is sound and proper, does not call for interference. The learned Single Judge has found that the order of transfer is not approved by the Chief Minister as required in law; the endorsement made by the Chief Minister on the note to the effect that he has “seen” the order does not amount to approval. Besides, it is stated that the learned Single Judge has observed that there was no departmental proposals for effecting transfer of the contesting respondent; in the absence of any such departmental proposal the arbitrary exercise of power by the Forest Minister is bad in law and would amount to a legal malice, since there was no material to justify that such transfer is in public interest. In that view it is submitted that the appeal is to be dismissed. 3) Heard the counsel for the appellant. 4) After carefully going through the submissions made at the bar the following reasons are given by the learned Single Judge. (i) The notation “seen” made by the Hon’ble Chief Minister does not amount to approval of the order of transfer. (ii) There has been no initiation of proposal from the department for effecting the transfer. (iii) The suo motu exercise of power by the Forest Minister without departmental recommendation is arbitrary and amounts to a legal malice. (i) The notation “seen” made by the Hon’ble Chief Minister does not amount to approval of the order of transfer. (ii) There has been no initiation of proposal from the department for effecting the transfer. (iii) The suo motu exercise of power by the Forest Minister without departmental recommendation is arbitrary and amounts to a legal malice. 5) After carefully going through the submissions made at the bar and the reasons stated by the learned Single Judge we find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is incorrect: when the transfer proposals have been recommended by the Forest Minister, the Hon’ble Chief Minister has made a notation “seen”. The said notation is virtually an “approval”. If the Hon’ble Chief Minister was not agreeable he would have made a different notation. When the Hon’ble Chief Minister has noted that he has “seen” and put his signature, such a notation amounts to approval for orders of transfer. Nextly, the view taken by the learned Single Judge that there has been no initiation of proposal from the department is not a ground to hold that the Forest Minister had no power to effect transfers and to infer that there is any legal malice. The transfer order is effected in public interest. The Forest Minister being the highest executive in Forest department, he has got all the powers to effect transfers in public interest. It is not necessary that suggestions or recommendations should emanate from the lower-ranking bureaucracy. In that view of the matter the writ appeal is allowed.