IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2186 of 2009 ASHOK KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 18.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Learned counsel for the State submits that he has received instruction that the petitioner had wrongly been transferred to Patna and, therefore, it was only the error that was being corrected that he has been transferred afresh to Buxar. He prays for time to file counter affidavit for that purpose. This Court does not consider it necessary to adjourn the matter for the same, since the writ application can easily be disposed off on a question of law following earlier decision of this Court on similar issue. The petitioner was transferred from Buxar to Patna by an order dated 30.6.2008. He joined at Patna on 2.7.2008. On 3.10.2008 he has been transferred back to Buxar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on an order of this Court in CWJC No. 16382 of 2008 disposed on 9.1.2009, wherein placing reliance on two 2 earlier Bench decisions of this Court reported in 2000(2) PLJR 332 (Smt. Jyotsna Kumari v. State of Bihar & ors.) and 2000(3) PLJR 139 (Mahmood Azam Siddique v. State of Bihar &ors.) this Court held that an order of transfer once issued and acted upon by joining, the transaction was complete. Thereafter, there remained no transfer order in existence for annulment, cancellation or modification. The order of transfer became a spent force and was redundant after such joining. The impugned order dated 3.10.2008 states that it was being issued in modification of the earlier order of transfer dated 30.6.2008. In so far as the submission of the State that the order of transfer dated 30.6.2008 was an error, which has only been corrected by fresh order dated 3.10.2008 is concerned, similar objection was raised in CWJC No. 16382 of 2008 also and which was likewise negated following the law laid down in the case of Smt. Jyotsna Kumar and Mahmood Azam Siddique (supra). The order dated 3.10.2008 is, therefore, set aside in so far as the petitioner is concerned. The writ application stands allowed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)