HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR (DIVISION BENCH) CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI JAGDISH BHALLA, ACTING C.J. & HON'BLESHRIDILIPRAOSAHEBDESHMUKH,J. ADBellant Petitioner CS' Non-apBeLlant Respondents Writ ApDeaKPRl No.3766 Of 2007 ^y\ ^ \^s i^ . Chatur Kumar Gajabhiye, aged about 52 years, son of Late Chuni Lal Gajabhiye, occupation, S.l., resident of police Station Jaijepur, DistrictJanjgir- Champa(C.G.) -Versus- 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through - The Secretary, Mantralay Deptt of Home Affairs, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 2. The State Police Establishment Board, through - Its President. 3. TheDirectorGeneralofPolice, Police Head Quarter, Raipur (CG) 4. The High Level Caste Scrutiny Committee, State of Chhattisgarh in the Premises of- Pt. Ravishankar Shukla Uniyersity, Raipur (C.G.) 5. The Superintendent of Police Distt. Janjgir-ChampafC.G.) 6. The Station House Officer,Police Station Jaijaipur, Distt. Janjgir — Champa(C.G.) 7. V.K.Damalahe, son pf not known, Ex, Additional Direetor General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. 8. Bhau Ram Damalahe, son of Not known, Ex. Distt. Suptdg. Of Police, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. Writ Appeal U/S 2 (1) ofthe C.G. Hiah Gourt (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 Present:, , • ^ . . •,; " ^,., , Shri Amit Sharma, Gounsel for the appellant/petitioner, Shri Vinay Harit.Dy. Advocate General for the State. ORALORDER " (Passed on 25.06.2.007) 51 EliH iy'^,.1 • Ri KS WSStt EB!@?11 IK!3B j^^l^ ! iss.isttss 9S9 ^£^2^£ 2 The following oral order of the Court was passed by Jagdish Bhalla, Acting C.J. The writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.04.2007 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge wherein Hon'ble Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitionNo. 1970 of 2007 filed by the appellant herein inter affa challenged his transfer from one district to anotherdistrict, Time and again the Apex Court has observed that the' transfer order can be ehallenged only on the ground of either violationof law or strong caseof ma/a ffc/e. There is no allegation as far as violationof law is concerned. However, learned counsel for the appellant states that there is case of ma/a fide on behalfofthe DirectorGeneral of Police, respondent No.3. However, instead of impleading the Director Generalof Police, the appellant had impleaded respondents No.7 & 8 - Ex. Additional Director Generalof Police and Ex. Distt. Superintendent of Police of Madhya Pradesh.Bhopal. The appointing authorityofthe Sub-lnspector is the DirectorGeneral of Police. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge. / . ' Learned counsel for the appeltant failed to substantiate the case of ma/a fide before this Court. Mere making an allegation of ma/a ffde will not be the ground forthe interference by this Court. We have been further • ig :B !K ul-,LiJJ:B!:.;. ^^•w informed by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant had already joined at his place oftransferon 12 June of2007. We are of the considered opinion that in case the appellant wanted to rely upon the allegation of /na/a ffde, it was mandatory for him to implead Director General of Police by name as respondent.as required underlaw so that hewould have in a position to defend his case. We are in agreement with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. Ag^ChiefJustice Oi ^'iudge s<u:nesW»B^ ^ove51 ^' if \-