1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 09.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN Writ Petition (MD)No.1430 of 2011 and M.P (MD) Nos.1,2 & 3 of 2011 Devanathan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Regional Director, Regional Directorate of Municipal Administration Office, Madurai – 2. 2.The Municipal Commissioner, Karaikudi Municipality, Karaikudi Town, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.320/2011/C1 dated 18.01.2011 and quash the same in so far as the petitioner is concerned. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thirumurthy For R – 1 : Mr.V.Rajasekaran Special Government Pleader For R – 2 : Mr.D.Sasikumar - - - - - - O R D E R The present Writ Petition is laid challenging the order of the second respondent dated 18.01.2011, an order of transfer. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as an Office Assistant in the year 1987 in the second respondent office and subsequently, promoted as Revenue Assistant and till date, he is continuing as Revenue Assistant in the second respondent office. He was transferred by the order of the second respondent dated 12.02.2010 to 17th and 18th Wards https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 from Ward Nos.32,33,34 and 35. While so, by proceedings dated 01.04.2010 of the second respondent, he has been shifted to Ward Nos.19 and 29 from Ward Nos.17 and 18. Again, by proceedings dated 18.01.2011 of the second respondent, he has been shifted to the Ward Nos.28, 30 and 31 from the Ward Nos.19 and 29. The said order is under challenge in the present Writ Petition. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner put forthwith the following points:- (i) There is a frequent transfer and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. (ii) It is punitive in nature and hence, the said order is liable to be set aside. 4.I am not able to accept the said contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner has not been shifted from one place to another or one District to other District or a different place altogether within the same District. He has been merely shifted from one Ward to other Ward. Hence, it cannot be said that such shifting amounts to a frequent transfer. 5.As far as the other ground is concerned, it is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned order reads that the petitioner has been transferred on punitive grounds. The impugned order states that on administrative grounds, such order came to be passed. 6.Time and again, this Court has held that the order of transfer cannot be interfered by this Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless or otherwise, the following reasons are set out: (i) If the order of transfer is passed with mala fide intention; (ii) If it is violative of any of the statutory provisions; (iii) If the order has been passed by an authority, which is not competent to pass such order. 7.In the case on hand, no such plea was raised. Further, as stated already, shifting the petitioner from one Ward to another will not amount to transfer. 8.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the proceedings of the second respondent dated 18.01.2011 and in fine, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.O) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To 1.The Regional Director, Regional Directorate of Municipal Administration Office, Madurai – 2. 2.The Municipal Commissioner, Karaikudi Municipality, Karaikudi Town, Sivagangai District. +One CC to M/s.K.Elil Selvi, Advocate, SR.No.5878 ps/sml rl/4c – 15.3.2011 W.P.(MD)No.1430 of 2011 and M.P (MD) Nos.1,2 & 3 of 2011 09.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/