JUDGMENT : The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “ … to issue a Writ, Order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings vide bearing Rc.No.2855/2024/A1/A5 dated 22.09.2024 issued by the Respondent No.4 in transferring me from the office of Respondent No 6 as void, ab initio manifestly arbitrary irrational, capricious whimsical per se illegal ultra vires unreasonable dehors delegation of powers and legislative competence colourable exercise of legislative and executive powers besides being dehors application of mind and jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 and 309 of the Constitution of India and Contrary to G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024 issued by Finance (HR.I.Pl.G & POLICY) Department, Andhra Pradesh and consequently to set aside the same…” 2. a) Petitioner joined in Government service on 02.12.1998 as a Junior Assistant, ZP Staff in Panchayat Raj Department, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. In the year 2018, the petitioner was transferred as Executive Engineer to PRI Division, Vijayawada. Later, he was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant and posted at Vijayawada in the Directorate of Disabled Welfare Office. On 16.07.2019 upon petitioner’s request, he was transferred to Divisional Development Officer, Machilipatnam on deputation. On 29.01.2024, the petitioner was repatriated to PRI Division, Machilipatnam. The petitioner is the office bearer of a recognized employee’ association. The 4th respondent issued proceedings vide Rc.No.1641/2023/A5 dated 31.05.2023 transferring the petitioner. The petitioner filed W.P.No.14039 of 2024 and the same was allowed. Petitioner has been working in the office of 5th respondent and completed 5 years 15 days. b) The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.75, Finance (HR.I-PLG. & POLICY) Department dated 17.08.2024 issuing guidelines for the transfers of employees for the year 2024. Paragraph V (5) of the said guidelines prescribes regarding transfers of office bearers of recognized employees Associations. Despite the same, the 4th respondent issued the proceedings impugned in the writ petition. Petitioner made a representation dated 25.09.2024. The Government issued circular Memo No.GAD01-SW0SERA/13/2024-SW dated 22.08.2024 regarding the procedure to be adopted in transferring the office bearers. With these averments, the above writ petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri A.S.K.S.Bhargav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.Srinivasulu Reddy, learned standing counsel for 4th respondent, and Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for Respondents 1 to 3 & 5 to 7. 4. With these averments, the above writ petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri A.S.K.S.Bhargav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.Srinivasulu Reddy, learned standing counsel for 4th respondent, and Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for Respondents 1 to 3 & 5 to 7. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration, would submit that the transfer of the petitioner was made contrary to the guidelines G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024. The proceedings, impugned, are unreasonable, and opposed to the cardinal principles of justice & fair play. The transfer of the petitioner will affect his service benefits, live with dignity, life, and livelihood. He would also submit that the proceedings impugned are capricious and colorable exercise of power. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance upon the order of the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.23195 of 2020 dated 28.01.2021. He also relied on the judgment of composite High Court in J.Ravinder Vs. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Karimnagar Region, Karimnagar, 1994 APLJ (2) 225 : 1994 SCC OnLine AP 142. He also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others, (2009) 2 SCC 592 . He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in P.Karunakaran Vs. The Union of India, WP No.12812 of 2013 dated 04.10.2013. 6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services as well as Sri G.Srinivasulu Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 4th respondent would submit that the petitioner was transferred on administrative exigency. Transfer of the petitioner was made, strictly, as per G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024. They would further submit that to achieve optimum productivity, efficiency, and accountability in administration by placing the right person at the right place the transfer was made and thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services and Standing Counsel placed reliance upon the judgments in Shilpi Bose Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532 and Daram Vasantha Kumar Vs. State Bank of India, Visakhapatnam District and others, 2012 (3) ALD 173 (DB). 8. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether, the transfer order dated 20.09.2024 (Ex.P1) suffers from any illegality warranting interference by this Court to exercise judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 9. State Bank of India, Visakhapatnam District and others, 2012 (3) ALD 173 (DB). 8. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether, the transfer order dated 20.09.2024 (Ex.P1) suffers from any illegality warranting interference by this Court to exercise judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 9. Before delving into the facts of the case, let the Court examine the scope of the writ petition regarding the transfer of employees. It is a settled law that an employee holding a transferable post cannot claim any vested right to work at a particular place as the transfer order normally does not affect legal rights. The transfer issue is a prerogative of the employer and normally Courts will not interfere with transfers. A transfer is not only an incidence of service but also an essential condition of the service. Normally courts are chary to interfere with an order of transfer made for administrative reasons. However, if an order of transfer is found to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power; if the transfer is made in connection with departmental proceedings; for extraneous considerations or collateral purposes, the Court can interfere with such transfers. 10. In Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, 1989 SCR (2) 357, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed thus: "Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to the another is an incident of service. No Government servant or employee of public undertaking has a legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration." 11. In Union of India Vs. H.N. Kirtania, 1989 SCR (3) 397 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: “Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in the public interest should not be interfered with unless there are strong and pressing grounds rendering the transfer order illegal on the grounds of violation of statutory rules or grounds of malafide.” 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532 , observed thus: “4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532 , observed thus: “4. In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the ground of malafide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer Orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer Order is passed in violation of executive instructions or Orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the Order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer Orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest." (emphasis is mine) 13. In State of Punjab vs. Joginder Singh Dhatt, AIR 1993 SC 2486 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: “3. … It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where, and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from his present posting …” 14. In Union of India and Others vs. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the scope of judicial review is available when there is a clear violation of statutory provision or the transfer is swayed by mala-fide etc., It was observed as follows: “7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala-fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject...” 15. In N.K. Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 98 , the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the aspect of the transfer of an employee, the prerogative of an employer regarding transfer observed as follows: “23. In N.K. Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 98 , the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the aspect of the transfer of an employee, the prerogative of an employer regarding transfer observed as follows: “23. … Assessment of worth must be left to the bonafide decision of the superiors in service and their honest assessment accepted as a part of service discipline. Transfer of a government servant in a transferable service is a necessary incident of the service career. Assessment of the quality of men is to be made by the superiors taking into account several factors including suitability of the person for a particular post and exigencies of administration. Several imponderables requiring the formation of a subjective opinion in that sphere may be involved, at times. The only realistic approach is to leave it to the wisdom of the hierarchical superiors to make that decision. Unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinized judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinizing all transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of all government departments. This must be left, in the public interest, to the departmental heads subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated.” The Apex Court further observed that: “24. … Challenge in courts of a transfer when the career prospects remain unaffected and there is no detriment to the government servant must be eschewed and interference by courts should be rare, only when a judicially manageable and permissible ground is made out. This litigation was ill-advised.” 16. In the State of M.P. and another Vs S.S.Kourav and others, (1995) 3 SCC 270 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “The courts or tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of officers on administrative grounds. It is for the administration to take appropriate decisions and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation. In this case transfer order having been issued on administrative grounds, expediency of those orders cannot be examined by the Court.” 17. It is for the administration to take appropriate decisions and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or by extraneous consideration without any factual background foundation. In this case transfer order having been issued on administrative grounds, expediency of those orders cannot be examined by the Court.” 17. In National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC 574 , it was observed as follows: “No government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place since the transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable post from one place to other is not only an incident but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise of power or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the tribunals cannot interfere with such orders as a matter routine, as though they are the appellate authorities substituting their own decisions for that of the management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned.” 18. In Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others, 2009) 2 SCC 592, the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: “19. Indisputably an order of transfer is an administrative order. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer, which is ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on the part of the authority is proved. Mala fide is of two kinds - one malice in fact and the second malice in law. 20. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal.” 19. Of late, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sri Pubi Lombi Vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others, 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 225, reversed the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and upheld the order of the learned single Judge, wherein the learned single Judge declined to interfere in a transfer. The Apex Court observed thus: “10. In view of the foregoing enunciation of law by judicial decisions of this Court, it is clear that in absence of (i) pleadings regarding mala-fide, (ii) non-joining the person against whom allegation are made, (iii) violation of any statutory provision (iv) the allegation of the transfer being detrimental to the employee who is holding a transferable post, judicial interference is not warranted. In the sequel of the said settled norms, the scope of judicial review is not permissible by the Courts in exercising of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 20. Keeping the law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court, let me delve into the facts of this case. 21. The Petitioner, Senior Assistant, PRI Division, Machilipatnam was transferred and posted at RWS&S Sub-division, Avanigadda. The petitioner was elected as the Organising Secretary of A.P.N.G.Os’ Association, District Branch, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, and the same is evidenced by Ex P.12 proceedings dated 30-10-2022. Earlier when the petitioner was transferred, he filed writ petition 14039 of 2023. A co-ordinate bench of this Court allowed the writ petition by order dated 02-1-2024. Copy of the order is filed as Ex P.7. The learned judge recorded a finding that the transfer proceedings are not in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 71 dated 17-5-2023 and Circular Memo No. GAD01-SW0SERA/27/2019-SW dated 15-6-2022. 22. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.75 Finance (HR.I-PLG. & POLICY) Department dated 17.08.2024, framing guidelines/ instructions, in respect of transfers and posting of employees. 23. Copy of the order is filed as Ex P.7. The learned judge recorded a finding that the transfer proceedings are not in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 71 dated 17-5-2023 and Circular Memo No. GAD01-SW0SERA/27/2019-SW dated 15-6-2022. 22. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.75 Finance (HR.I-PLG. & POLICY) Department dated 17.08.2024, framing guidelines/ instructions, in respect of transfers and posting of employees. 23. In the aforementioned Government Order, it was detailed that the Government is committed to the welfare of its employees and seeks to promote work-life balance while ensuring efficient and effective service delivery to the citizens. To achieve the same, it is required that the employees are posted at places where they can contribute to the best of their abilities for improved governance and efficient delivery of public services. Keeping the above laudable object, guidelines were issued in the aforementioned G.O. The guidelines issued cannot be construed as either a Statute or the Rules made thereunder. The guidelines or administrative instructions concerning the exercise of transfer of employees concerned, the same are intended to ensure that a fair procedure is adopted and the power is not exercised arbitrarily by the employer or his representative while effecting transfer of the employees. Uniform standards and procedures are put in place to secure fair play and transparency in the matter. Thus, the guidelines formulated are only an administrative mechanism. 24. Paragraph No.IV of the said G.O. prescribes Principles for Transfers and Postings. Paragraph No.IV (1) prescribes that the employees who have completed a period of continuous stay of 5 years at a station invariably transferred. Paragraph No.IV (2) prescribes that the employees, other than those who completed 5 years of stay at a station, shall also be eligible for transfer on administrative exigencies or personal request. Such employees too shall exercise preferences for stations. Paragraph-V (5) which is relevant is extracted here with: “5) (a) The standing instructions on the transfers of office bearers of recognized employees Associations as issued in Circular Memo No. GAD01SW0SERA/27/2019- SW, GA (Services Welfare) Department, dt.15.06. 2022 will apply i.e., not to transfer the office bearers of all the Recognized Service Associations in the State at State level, District level and Division/Mandal level, until their completion of three (3) terms or nine (9) years of stay in a particular station. 2022 will apply i.e., not to transfer the office bearers of all the Recognized Service Associations in the State at State level, District level and Division/Mandal level, until their completion of three (3) terms or nine (9) years of stay in a particular station. (b) The list of office bearers at the taluk and district levels of recognized Employees Associations shall be forwarded to the Heads of Departments (HODs) at the district level through the respective Collector. (c) The list of the state association shall be forwarded to the HODs at the state level through the General Administration Department (GAD) only. The transferring authority is instructed not to consider any list that has not been received through the aforementioned channels. (d) However, the competent authorities can affect transfers on administrative grounds even before expiry of the present nine years period after recording the reasons.” 26. Thus, a perusal of the guidelines extracted supra, makes it clear the circular memo mentioned in 5(a) regarding the transfer of office bearers will apply to the office bearers of recognized employee associations. The circular memo dated 15.06.2022 filed as Ex.P.3 prescribes that no transfer of office bearers of all the recognized service associations be it State, District or Division level until completion of 3 terms or nine years of stay in a particular station. 27. Clause 5(d) of the guidelines, which is like an exception, explains that the competent authority can affect transfer on administrative grounds, before the expiry of 9 years, by recording reasons. 28. In the transfer proceedings, impugned in the writ petition, the authority assigned reasons reads as follows: “The individual has worked in Machilipatnam, Head quarters nearly for 10 years, in the cadre of Junior Assistant, which is a focal place. Further the individual transferred to another focal place i.e., EE, PR, Vijayawada. Further, he worked in the State office of Welfare of differently abled senior citizens, Vijayawada on promotion as Senior Assistant, again in the cadre of Senior Assistant, he was worked in EE, PR, Machilipatnam, and continuing for the last 5 years as seen from the above, the individual has been working in focal places in his entire service and thereby minimizing the opportunities for the other employees Further public interest petitions have been received on the individual. As seen from the above, it is found that the facts of the allegations are true, found correct and also noticed that the individual has been have worked more than 20 years in focal places in his entire service. Every time, he individual is asking for exemption under office bearer category and also influencing the officers and co-employees to stay in the same place. Further as he has completed nine years stay, in the same station previously his representation for consideration of office bearer is not considered as per the instructions issued vide in 7th cited ‘Note orders of the Chairperson, ZPP, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, Dt.22-9-2022’.” 29. Thus, as seen from the proceedings impugned, the authority while transferring the petitioner assigned reasons. Normally this Court while exercising, judicial review, will not act as an appellate authority or substitute its opinion. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of transfer is punitive, this Court is not persuaded by the said submission. A reading of the two paras extracted supra, this Court does not find that the transfer of the petitioner is punitive. When a proceedings/order is passed, one has to read the entire order but not a line or two, to gather the purpose of the order. 30. The petitioner worked more than 20 years in focal places in his service. He has also completed 9 years of stay in the same station. For reckoning the length of service, as per guideline IV(1), the number of years of service in all cadres/posts at a station shall counted. The order impugned specifies that the petitioner completed 9 years of stay at the station. The 9 years exemption for the office bearer, will not apply to the petitioner. Apart from that reasons were also assigned in the order impugned. 31. The petitioner did not plead mala fide action on the part of the authority. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the transfer will affect prospects in employment. Unless the petitioner pleads, it is very hard for this court to visualize the petitioner's case in those lines. 32. Whenever allegations of mala fides are made, the persons against whom the same are leveled need to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings enabling them to answer. In Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited Vs. Unless the petitioner pleads, it is very hard for this court to visualize the petitioner's case in those lines. 32. Whenever allegations of mala fides are made, the persons against whom the same are leveled need to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings enabling them to answer. In Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited Vs. RDS Projects and others, (2013) 1 SCC 524 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: “… There is yet another aspect which cannot be ignored. As and when allegations of mala fides are made, the persons against whom the same are leveled need to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings to enable them to answer the charge. In the absence of the person concerned as a party in his/her individual capacity, it will neither fair nor proper to record a finding that malice in fact had vitiated the action taken by the authority concerned…” 33. In the case at hand, no authority was impleaded as a party respondent to the writ petition enabling the authority to answer the charge. In the absence, this Court does not find any merit in the said plea. 34. In Shilpi Bose case (supra), the Hon’ble Court observed that even if a transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order, instead the affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. Of course, in the case at hand, this Court does not find any violation of the rules and regulations regarding the transfer. As discussed supra, the transfer of the petitioner was made on administrative grounds. 35. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner will inure to the benefit of the petitioner. Based on the facts of each case, without disturbing the first principles of law qua interference of Court in transfers matter i.e. Courts chary interference with transfer proceedings, orders were passed. 36. It is a settled principle of law that the observations made in the judgments by Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of a statute, and that too, is taken out of their context. (Amar Nath Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, (1985)1 SCC 345 ). The decision of a Court is only an authority for what it decides. (Amar Nath Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, (1985)1 SCC 345 ). The decision of a Court is only an authority for what it decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio, and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. (State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Mistra, AIR 1968 SC 647 ). 37. In Pubi Lombi’s case (supra), when a transfer was affected on a UO note of a Member of the Legislative Assembly, the learned single Judge did not interfere with such a transfer. When the Division Bench interfered and set aside the said order, the Hon’ble Apex Court set aside the order of the Division Bench and restored the order passed by the Single Judge. The observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court were referred to supra. 38. A perusal of the proceedings impugned, does not reflect malice in law or on facts. The authority transferred the petitioner on administrative exigency. 39. It is settled law that to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, one must satisfy infringement of its right be it legal or statutory, and corresponding legal obligation on the part of the respondent. Thus, the existence of legal rights is a sine qua non for invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 40. In State of U.P. and others Vs. Harish Chandra and others, (1996) 9 SCC 309 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: "10. ... Under the Constitution, a Mandamus can be issued by the court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of the petition." 41. In Union of India Vs. S.B. Vohra, (2004) 2 SCC 150 , the Hon’ble Apex Court considered a similar issue and held that for issuing a Writ of Mandamus in favour of a person, the person claiming must establish his legal right in himself. Then only a Writ of Mandamus could be issued against a person, who has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so. 42. In Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Then only a Writ of Mandamus could be issued against a person, who has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so. 42. In Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain, (2008) 2 SCC 280 , the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity to establish the existence of legal right and its infringement for the grant of Writ of Mandamus referred the principles stated in the Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G. Ferris and F.G. Ferris, Jr.: 43. In Mani Subrat Jain Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 276 , while considering scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows: “9. … It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a Mandamus without a legal right there must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something. (See Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Ed. Vol I, paragraph 122); State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander, AIR 1973 SC 2216 ; Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan, Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed, AIR 1976 SC 578 ) and Ferris Extraordinary Legal Remedies paragraph 198." 44. In the case at hand, the transfer of the petitioner was made on administrative exigencies. An order of transfer of an employee will not visit the employee concerned with any grave consequence. He would be required to function from a different office or unit whenever subjected to such transfer. The rest of the conditions of his service remain intact. The petitioner failed to demonstrate infringement of either fundamental or statutory rights. This Court has not been persuaded by the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 45. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.