JUDGMENT Songkhupchung Serto, J. - Heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No.5 and Mr. D. Soki, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents. 2. Vide order No. SPWD-198/2013)Pt)/225-32, dated 02.09.2020, the petitioner who is an Assistant Engineer and was posted at Roing, PWD Sub-Division was transferred to Bilat PWD Sub-Division and the private respondent i.e. the respondent No.5 who is also an Assistant Engineer and was posted at Bilat, PWD sub-Division was transferred to Roing, PWD Sub-Division. However, on 04.09.2020, vide order No. SPWD198/2013(Pt)/243-50, the transfer order was kept in abeyance. Being aggrieved by the later order which kept the transfer order in abeyance, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. On the day the writ petition was moved i.e. 10.09.2020, in the interim, operation of the impugned order was suspended till the returnable date of the notice issued. In the meanwhile, the private respondent filed an I.A(C) No. 116(AP)/2020 praying for recalling or vacating or modifying the interim order dated 10.09.2020, passed by this Court. Since the pleadings are complete and all the parties are ready for hearing both the writ petition and the connected I.A were heard together and are being disposed by this common judgment and order. 3. The case of the petitioner as submitted by Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel is that, after the issuance of the transfer order dated 28.08.2020 signed on 02.09.2020 he was immediately released from the establishment of PWD, Roing Sub-Division-II, vide order dated 03.09.2020 and was directed to report to the Executive Engineer, Pasighat Division, PWD, Arunachal Pradesh for further duties. Accordingly, he handed over the charge of the Assistant Engineer, Roing PWD Sub-division by signing the certificate of transfer of charge under Form GFR-33 and proceeded to his new place of posting and submitted his joining report to the Executive Engineer, PWD Pasighat Division on 04.09.2020. But to his utter shock he came to know that the transfer order has been modified. Therefore, he rushed down to the Office of Commissioner, PWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh at Itanagar to enquire about the same and there he was furnished with a copy of the order dated 28.08.2020 but signed on 04.09.2020 by which the transfer order was kept in abeyance till 31.03.2021. Therefore, he rushed down to the Office of Commissioner, PWD, Government of Arunachal Pradesh at Itanagar to enquire about the same and there he was furnished with a copy of the order dated 28.08.2020 but signed on 04.09.2020 by which the transfer order was kept in abeyance till 31.03.2021. This order however did not mention any reason whatsoever for keeping in abeyance the transfer order which was issued in public interest. Therefore, it is arbitrary and illegal. It is further submitted that the transfer order was issued in public interest as such, any order issued thereafter modifying or recalling or resigning the same must also be in public interest and the same should be reflected in the order. But in this case, since the impugned order did not mention any reason which would indicate that it was issued in the public interest the same lacks legal sanctity, therefore, interference of this Court is called for. The learned counsel also submitted that the Office note relating to the issuance of the impugned order which was obtained under RTI did not contain any reason for issuing the same, therefore, action of the respondents in issuing the impugned order has no justification whatsoever. Mr. Panging in support of his submissions, referred to three judgments passed by this High Court; (i) Ruokuolhoulie Angami-versus- State of Nagaland & Others,1997 1 GLT 140, para-8, 9 & 10. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced here below; "8). This Court in a catena of decision has held that, for cancellation, modification or keeping in abeyance of the transfer order passed in Public interest must be supported with sufficient reasons necessitating for passing such order. The view taken by this court has rationable behind it. Once the transfer order is made in public interest. Court normal do not interfere unless the order is passed with malafide or against the statutory rules. The only way open to the aggrieved government servant is to file a representation before the competent authority to redress his grievances. But This court insist that for cancellation/modification or keeping it is abeyance of such order must be supported with sufficient reasons, because transfer of officers are always made in public interest and after elaborate exercise as to who should be transfer where in the exigency of the administration. While processing the transfer order, various factors are taken into consideration. But This court insist that for cancellation/modification or keeping it is abeyance of such order must be supported with sufficient reasons, because transfer of officers are always made in public interest and after elaborate exercise as to who should be transfer where in the exigency of the administration. While processing the transfer order, various factors are taken into consideration. Once such factors being the duration of the stationing of one officer in a particular station for a long time. If an Officer is posted in a particular station for a long time. If an officer is posted in a particular station for a long time, no doubt, that he also acquire a considerable knowledge about the administration of the area, but at the same time he also often establishes vested interest in the area because of his long association and to avoid such eventualities, timely posting is always called for. Therefore, if the transfer order made in public interest is allowed to be taken away by another cryptic order modifying/cancelling or keeping in abeyance of the transfer order without assigning any reasons, it ceases to be in public interest, therefore, it must be held that the order has been passed at the whims and caprice of the authorities exercising the power. Public interest would not be allowed to be sacrificed at the altar of the whims and caprice of the authority exercising (he power. It must be grasped that public authority possesses power to use to public interest. 9. Mr. B.N. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent at the outset contended that the basic foundation of the issuance of writ of mandamus is an infringement of legal right and since the petitioner has no legal right to continue in the post of Asst. Commissioner (MS), this writ petition is not maintainable. This question has been answered by this Court on 22.02.1996, while suspending the impugned order dated 14.02.1996 assailed in this writ petition, this court observed, that the issuance of a rule and interim order would not precluded the competent authority for passing necessary posting order in respect of the petitioner. This apart, there is a specific prayer in this writ petition for quashing the impugned order dated 14.02.1996 as being arbitrary, illegal and malafide. Under the above circumstances, the contention of Mr. B.N, Sarma cannot be accepted. 10. This apart, there is a specific prayer in this writ petition for quashing the impugned order dated 14.02.1996 as being arbitrary, illegal and malafide. Under the above circumstances, the contention of Mr. B.N, Sarma cannot be accepted. 10. As already said, the impugned order dated 14.02.1996 and the impugned order dated 05.12.1995 as quoted above lacks reasons, let alone sufficient reasons and therefore, it cannot stand the scrutiny of the law. The impugned order dated 14.02.1996 is accordingly quashed and set aside. With the aforesaid direction, this petition is allowed. Parties are asked to bear their costs". (ii). Zakir Hussain versus- State of Assam & Others, (2001) 3 GauLT 67, para-3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced here below; "3. Shri Kataky, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, specifically argues that the impugned notification dated 5.6.2001 on the face of itself is illegal and liable to be set aside only on the count that the same has been issued only to accommodate the Respondent No. 4 without assigning any reasons for stay of the earlier notification dated 19.3.2001 when both the notification have been issued for public interest. In support of the said notification Mr. Kataky has relied on two decisions of this Court namely Sougaijam Brojendro Singh v. State of Manipur and Ors.,1996 1 GLR 303: (1996) 2 GLT 577 and Roukuolhoulie Angami v. State of Nagaland and Ors.,1997 3 GLR 1 : (1997) 1 GLT 140 respectively. 4. In Sougaijam Brojendro Sigh's case (supra), this Court held in paragraph-6 as follows: "From the above quoted orders, it would clearly show that from the period from 18.9.95 to 13.10.95 as many as 3 (three) transfer orders have been passed. This would clearly show that the order has not been passed after application of mind but with an unholy haste and therefore, it cannot be said that the appropriate authority has exercised the power vested in them in public interest. From the instances recited above it would clearly reflect that the mind of the authority has been influenced by extraneous consideration. Powers are being misused in the guise of public interest. Surprising enough, all the aforesaid order have been passed by the same officer and yet no reason has been assigned necessitating of passing of the impugned order. From the instances recited above it would clearly reflect that the mind of the authority has been influenced by extraneous consideration. Powers are being misused in the guise of public interest. Surprising enough, all the aforesaid order have been passed by the same officer and yet no reason has been assigned necessitating of passing of the impugned order. Once the transfer order is made in public interest, subsequent orders cancelling or superseding must be supported with sufficient reasons". 5. Again in the RoukuolhoulieAngami's case (supra) this Court in paragraph-8 of the judgment held as follows: "This Court in a catena of decision has held that, for cancellation, modification or keeping in abeyance of the transfer order passed in public interest must be supported with sufficient reasons necessitating for passing such order. The view taken by this Court has rationale behind it. Once the transfer order is made in public interest Court normally do not interfere unless the order is passed with malafide or against the statutory rules. The only way open to the aggrieved Government servant is to file a representation before the competent authority to redress his grievances. But this Court insist that for cancellation/modification or keeping it in abeyance of such order must be supported with sufficient reasons, because transfer of officers are always made in public interest and after elaborate exercise as to who should be transferred where in the exigency of the administration. While processing the transfer order, various factors are taken into consideration. One such factors being the duration of the stationing of one officer in a particular station for a long time. If an officer is posted in a particular station for a long time, no doubt, that he also acquires a considerable knowledge about the administration of the area but at the same time he also often establishes vested interest in the area because of his long association and to avoid eventualities timely posting is always called for. Therefore, if the transfer order made in public interest is allowed to be taken away by Anr. cryptic order modifying/cancelling or keeping in abeyance of the transfer order without assigning any reasons, it ceases to be in public interest. Therefore, it must be held that the order has been passed at the whims and caprice of the authorities exercising the power. cryptic order modifying/cancelling or keeping in abeyance of the transfer order without assigning any reasons, it ceases to be in public interest. Therefore, it must be held that the order has been passed at the whims and caprice of the authorities exercising the power. Public interest would not be allowed to be sacrificed at the altar of the whims and caprice of the authority exercising the power. It must be grasped that public authority possesses to use for public interest". 6. The principle laid down in both the two cases is that once transfer order is made in public interest, subsequent orders cancelling or superseding must be supported with sufficient reasons. If any such order is passed in cryptic manner without assigning any reasons that would seem to be not in public interest. 7. I find enough force in the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner. It is correct that in exercising the discretionary powers so conferred on the Government in dealing with transfer matters which is its prerogative, the authority must act with all fairness and reasonableness. The authority must not be allowed to exercise such power arbitrarily or with its whims and fancies. 8. Mr. Bhattacharjee learned senior counsel for the Respondent No. 4 vehemently contests the submission advanced on behalf of the Petitioner justifying the impugned notification dated 5.6.2001. He submits that the authority in its wisdom has passed this impugned notification in the public interest and as such there is no illegality or irregularity in passing the said order. 9. As stated earlier it appears on the face of the record that the authority in passing the subsequent impugned notification did not assign any reason whatsoever for cancelling and superseding the earlier order dated 19.3.2001 and in that view of the matter I am not at all in agreement with the submission of Mr. Bhattacharjee, the learned senior counsel". (iii). Deepak Tayeng -versus- State of Arunachal Pradesh & 4 Others,passed in W.P.(C) No. 503(AP)/2019,para-2,10 & 13. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced here below; "2).The case of the petitioner in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that in the interest of public service, by an order No. 29/2019 dated25.11.2019, the Education Department had transferred him and 28 others. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced here below; "2).The case of the petitioner in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that in the interest of public service, by an order No. 29/2019 dated25.11.2019, the Education Department had transferred him and 28 others. At the relevant time, he was serving as In-Charge Deputy Director of School Education (hereinafter referred to as "DDSE" for short), Yinkiong, Upper Siang District cum- DDSE HQ and he was transferred and posted as DDSE,Roing, Lower Dibang Valley. The post which he was supposed to join was being held by the respondent No.5. Accordingly, the petitioner was released from his previous place of posting by virtue of a release order dated 29.11.2019 and he joined his new place of posting on 02.12.2019 by submitting his joining report to the Deputy Commissioner, Lower Dibang Valley, Roing. The information about the joining of the petitioner to his transferred post of DDSE, Roing was duly conveyed to the Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Department of Education by W.T./Fax message dated 02.12.2019. However, the respondent No.5 was adamant and reluctant, as such, he did not hand over the charge by remaining absent. Accordingly, the petitioner apprised the Deputy Commissioner, Roing and the Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Department of Education about the same by his letter dated 09.12.2019. However, the Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh,Department of Education by an order dated 11.12.2019, partially modified the transfer order dated25.11.2019, inter-alia, retaining the respondent No.5 as DDSE, Roing and transferring the petitioner as DDSE, Longding, where the respondent No.5 was supposed to go, and that it was clarified therein that the modification would be in force till March, 2020. The order dated 11.12.2019, thereby modifying the transfer order has been put to challenge in this writ petition. 10).The Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh did not assign any reason in the impugned order dated 11.12.2019, for modifying the transfer order dated 25.11.2019. Therefore, in the absence of reasons, it cannot be accepted that there was any public interest involved in passing the impugned order. Rather, the absence of assigning any reason makes the said impugned order arbitrary and unreasonable and it was passed at the whims and caprice of the concerned officials, which cannot be sustained on facts and in law. Therefore, in the absence of reasons, it cannot be accepted that there was any public interest involved in passing the impugned order. Rather, the absence of assigning any reason makes the said impugned order arbitrary and unreasonable and it was passed at the whims and caprice of the concerned officials, which cannot be sustained on facts and in law. 13) When the authorities are required to modify the order of transfer for accommodating some officer, they are required to assign overwhelming public interest. In this case, no reason whatsoever was assigned. In respect of the petitioner and respondent No.5, the file so produced, only contains the note by the concerned MLA to the Minister (Education), on which the Minister of Education, Cultural Affairs, etc. had issued a direction to retain the respondent No.5 and to transfer the petitioner to Longding. There is no representation by the respondent No.5 in the file produced. Moreover, no one is disputing that the respondent No.5 was not a dedicated or decorated officer, but while transferring him by order dated 25.11.2019, the authorities are deemed to be aware of his activities and his decorations, yet the competent authorities had transferred him, by assigning that the transfers was in public interest. It is expected that every officer posted in a particular place will work dedicatedly, but it does not mean that if one officer had initiated a particular programme, the Government had given him a personal responsibility to see that until the programme concludes, such officer must be stationed at one place alone, which would be against the transfer policy existing in the State. Therefore, such a stand by the respondent No.5 that he is required to implement development works initiated by him has absolutely no merit". 4. Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent submitted that one of the grounds on which the petitioner sought for interference of this Court on the impugned order is that he had completed 2 years posting tenure under Roing district but the same is not true. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Mr. Pertin also submitted that the transfer order has been kept in abeyance only till 31st March, 2021 that too keeping in view the public interest. Therefore, the petitioner's prayer for interference of this High Court on the same is not reasonable at all. Mr. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. Mr. Pertin also submitted that the transfer order has been kept in abeyance only till 31st March, 2021 that too keeping in view the public interest. Therefore, the petitioner's prayer for interference of this High Court on the same is not reasonable at all. Mr. Pertin went on to submit that PWD is look after by not less than the Hon'ble Chief Minister, therefore, the authority i.e. mentioned in the note sheet is none other than the Hon'ble Chief Minister. As such, the impugned order was issued for extraneous consideration is not tenable. Mr. Pertin, then, submitted that the fact that the matter was brought to the notice of the highest authority shows that the impugned order was passed after giving due consideration to public interest. 5. Mr. Soki, learned Additional Sr. Government Advocate submitted that the private respondent along with his duties as Assistant Engineer of Bilat PWD Sub-Division was entrusted with the Infrastructure Development of Sainik School at Niglok under centrally sponsored scheme therefore, if his transfer order was given effect too immediately progress of the project was bound to be hampered, and for that reason the impugned order was issued to retain him at his place of posting till 31st March, 2021. Therefore, no arbitrariness was involved while issuing the same. 6. Mr. Panging in reply to the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that all the facts about the posting of the petitioner for the last few years have been stated in paragraph-2 of the writ petition and there is no concealment of facts. He also submitted that though the petitioner was posted under Roing Sub-division in different capacities he had been there for more than 2 years. Mr. Panging also submitted that the Government order has to be understood with the words given therein only and it cannot be improved by filing affidavit. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Soki, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate that the reason for issuing the impugned order was due to the fact that the private respondent was given the charge of looking after the infrastructure construction of Sainik School as stated in the affidavit filed by the State respondents cannot be accepted. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Soki, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate that the reason for issuing the impugned order was due to the fact that the private respondent was given the charge of looking after the infrastructure construction of Sainik School as stated in the affidavit filed by the State respondents cannot be accepted. In support of submission, the learned counsel referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay versus- GordhandasBhanji,1952 39 AIR SC 16, para- 9. The relevant paragraph isreproduced here below and the particular sentence on which emphasis was given by the learned counsel is underline; "9. An attempt was made by referring to the Commissioner's affidavit to show that this was really an order of cancellation made by him and that the order was his order and not that of Government. We are clear that public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." 7. Considered the submissions of the learned counsels keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the principles of law applicable. The transfer order No. SPWD-198/2013(Pt)/225-32, dated 28.08.2020 but signed on 02.09.2020 shows that the same was issued in public interest and it was to have immediate effect. But the impugned order No. SPWD-198/2013(Pt)/243-50, dated 28.08.2020 but signed on 04.09.2020 shows no reason whatsoever for issuing the same. The only thing mentioned therein was that it was issued with approval of the competent authority. Further, perusal of the Office note relating to the issuance of the impugned order also shows no reason at all. When no reason whatsoever has been given in the impugned order and in the Office note one cannot imagine or suppose or assigned, a reason for issuing the impugned order. Further, perusal of the Office note relating to the issuance of the impugned order also shows no reason at all. When no reason whatsoever has been given in the impugned order and in the Office note one cannot imagine or suppose or assigned, a reason for issuing the impugned order. The reason whatsoever it may be also cannot be added by filing of affidavit in view of the settled principle of law referred to by the learned counsel in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay -versus Gordhandas Bhanji,1952 39 AIR SC 16.When the transfer order has been issued in public interest and that too with immediate effect by a competent authority the order keeping such order in abeyance or cancelling the same could have been issued only for sufficient or overwhelming public interest. To do otherwise would only amount to arbitrariness which cannot be accepted in a Country where there is a democratic system of governance. It appears from the judgments referred to by the learned counsels of the petitioner that this principle of law has been consistently followed by this Court and there has not been any deviation from it. Therefore, I am of the view that the only conclusion that can be drawn in this case is; the impugned order is arbitrary for want of reason and as such, illegal and hence, interference of this Court is call for. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside. The writ petition and the I.A are disposed.