MC 1701/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The writ petitioner, by the present application, has prayed for an inter im order suspending the operation of the order of transfer dated 9.6.2009, till the disposal of the writ petition, which has been challenged in WP(C) No. 2404/2 009. By the said transfer order dated 9.6.2009 issued by the General Manager, Brahmaputra Board the petitioner has been transferred and posted in the same ca pacity in Jalpaiguri with immediate effect until further order. This Court though vide order dated 19.6.2009 passed in the writ petition suspended the operation of the said transfer order dated 9.6.2009 till the next dated fixed i.e. 24.6.2009, the said interim order has been refused to be exten ded vide order dated 24.6.2009 after hearing the learned counsel for the writ pe titioner as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Bo ard. While refusing to extend the earlier interim order it has been observed as follows:- \It prima facie appears from the materials on record that the issue with regard to the transfer of category of officers to which the petitioner belongs has to be decided by a Committee the constitution whereof is set out in the Noti fication dated 18.2.2009 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition). The records reveal hat the proposal for transfer in general, was initiated by the Superintendent En gineer (Drainage) vide his letter No. BB/CE(P&D)/D-R/025/OC/69 dated 19.3.2009 a ddressed to the Secretary, Brahmaputra Board, Basistha, Guwahati and that the sa me was followed up culminating in the decision of the aforementioned Committee t o transfer amongst others the petitioner. This was on 8.6.2009. The impugned ord er followed on 9.6.2009. A scrutiny of the papers produced before this Court doe s not per se reveal that the impugned order of transfer has been passed as punit ive step or that it is impelled by extraneous or irrelevant considerations. The materials available support prima facie that it is in the organizational exigenc ies.\ It appears from the said order that upon scrutiny of the materials avail able on record as produced, the Court was prima facie satisfied that the impugne d order of transfer has not been passed as a punitive step or that it has been i mpelled by extraneous or irrelevant considerations and such order was passed in the organizational exigencies. In view of the aforesaid position, I am not inclined to entertain the pr esent application and the same stands dismissed.