IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25593 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ A.V. FRANCIS, ASSISTANT TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, OTTAPALAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.25593 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks a mandamus or direction to quash Ext.P3 order dated 16.8.2008. According to the petitioner, he came to be transferred and posted at Ottappalam only in Januaruy, 2007. The case of the petitioner is that he has completed only one year at Ottappalam and now he is transferred to Palakkad, which is 60 kms., away. Petitioner has produced Ext.P1 series to point out that he is suffering from Cervical and Lumbar Vertibral Collapse and he is unable to stand and climb the steps. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that there were some oral complaints against the petitioner and it is felt that temporarily he has to be transferred out. It is pointed out that the distance between the present office, where he is working and the office to which he is transferred is only 33 kms. It is further pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner has not raised any allegation of malafides and it is only an order passed in exigency of service. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there is another vacancy available in Ottappalam itself. WPC. 25593/2008. 2 3. An order of transfer can be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution only on a case of malafides being established or on a statutory mandate being violated. Neither is present in this case. I do not think that the petitioner has made out a case for interference under Article 226 in the absence of a plea of malafides or breach of statutory mandate. Accordingly, I reject the writ petition. But I make it clear that if the petitioner makes a representation against Ext.P3 before the second respondent, the second respondent will take a decision on the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation and communicate the same to the petitioner. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb