IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 242 (S/B) of 2009 Jitendra Pratap Singh S/o Late B.B. Singh R/o Sisham Bagh, Forest Colony, Jail Road Haldwani, District Nainital. ………….. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Principal Secretary Forest, Civil Secretariat, Dehradun. 2. The Chief Conservator of Forest (Kumaon) Region Uttarakhand, Nainital. 3. The Conservator of Forest, Western Circle, Uttarakhand, Nainital. 4. The Divisional Forest Officer Tarai East Forest Division Haldwani, District Nainital. 5. Sri Balwant Singh Sahi, Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Khatima District Udham Singh Nagar. 6. The Minister of Forest and Environment and Transport Uttarakhand Government, Dehradun. …………. Respondents Sri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate present for the petitioner. Sri Subhash Upadhyay, Advocate present for the respondents No.1,2,3,4 & 6. Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Counsel for the respondent no.5. Dated : November 07, 2009 Coram : Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (By the Court) Heard. 2. By means of this writ petition moved under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged 2 the order dated 28.10.2009 passed by respondent No.4 whereby the petitioner/Sub Divisional Forest Officer has been transferred from Gola Sub Division to Khatima Sub Division. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that impugned transfer order suffers from malice as the petitioner, who is senior to the respondent No.5 is being transferred from Gola Sub Division to accommodate respondent No.5. 4. Perusal of the impugned order shows that order has been passed by the authority concerned in compliance of letter No. 767/V.I.P./2009 dated 20.08.2009 issued by Minister (Forest, Environment and Transport), Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. On last date, we directed the Standing Counsel to seek instructions and to show copy of the letter issued by the Minister concerned which is produced before us today. Said letter shows that Minister in his wisdom has expressed the opinion that since Khatima area is bordering with Nepal and as such it requires to be manned by a Senior Officer and he has directed accordingly to pass the impugned order. As such there appears no malice. In the writ jurisdiction, we can not see the correctness of the decision taken by Government. 5. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, we do not find that impugned order is passed on the basis of any malice against the petitioner. 3 6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed summarily. (Stay application No. 9407/2009 also stands dismissed). (Alok Singh, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J) 07.11.2009 JKJ/Ravi