IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 WA.No. 24 of 2011 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.37549/2010 Dated 17/12/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER --------------------------- G.CHANDRA BABU ASARI, S/O. K.GANGADHARAN ASARI, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (ESTABLISHMENT), KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM-14, RESIDING AT TC 7/972 (HOUSE NO.U 235), CHERUVALLY LANE, MARUTHUMKUZHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.P.USHAKUMARI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CULTURE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.A.V.SUDHI VASUDEVAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No. 24 of 2011 & I.A.No.20 of 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. This writ appeal is preferred by the writ petitioner aggrieved by the judgment dated 17th December, 2010 in W.P.(C) No.37549 of 2010. 2. The above mentioned writ petition was filed by the appellant herein challenging the order of transfer by which the appellant was transferred from Thiruvananthapuram to Thrissur. 3. By the judgment under appeal a learned Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the second respondent to consider the representation made by the appellant after affording appropriate opportunity to both the appellant as well as the person who is likely to be affected by such consideration and pass appropriate orders. 4. It is settled law of this country that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would normally not interfere in matters of transfers made by the administration. 5. However, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the transfer is a mala fide transfer and in support of her submission the learned counsel relied upon a statement made in the affidavit in I.A.No.20 of 2011 filed in the instant appeal. The relevant portion reads as follows: W.A.No.24 of 2011 - 2 - “The petitioner has been transferred on account of the pressure exerted by the ruling party union. In order to transfer the petitioner from Trivandrum, the ruling party union has submitted a representation to the Minister and the Minister has ordered in the representation to transfer the petitioner from Trivandrum, without conducting any enquiry to find out the facts involved.” 6. It may be noticed from the above that the statement made is very vague without any specific mention of the name of any person. Apart from that such a statement was not even made before the learned Judge during the course of hearing of the writ petition. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. The writ appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns