IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.20 of 2009 1. JITENDRA NATH SHARMA S/O LATE SUKHDEO SHARMA, R/O VILLAE & P.O.- SATJORA BAZAR, P.S.- PANAPUR, DISTRICT- SARAN, PRESENTED RESIDING AT MOHALLA- SHIVPURI ( BELBANAWA), P.O. & P.S.- MOTIHARI, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI 2. DR. PREM KUMAR S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT, HON’BLE CABINET MINISTER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR 5. SRI NARMDESHWR LAL S/O RAJBANSH LAL, THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI ****** For the Appellant :- Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent :- Mr. Arup Kr. Chongdar, JC to AAJ-II ************ 2 22/01/2009 Writ petitioner- appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 3.12.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 16999 of 2008 dismissing the writ application, has preferred this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Short facts, giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioner- appellant (hereinafter referred to as petitioner) was transferred to Tetraria Block by order dated 18.7.2008. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing C.W.J.C. No. 12178 of 2008 (Jitendra Nath Sharma Vs. The State of Bihar) before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 20th of August, 2008 disposed of the writ application inter alia directing the authority to dispose of the representation by a reasoned order. In the light thereof the - 2 - District Magistrate, East Champaran considered the representation of the petitioner and by order as contained in Memo dated 13th of October, 2008 rejected the representation and reiterated that in view of the order dated 18.7.2008 the petitioner is required to join at Tetaria Block. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing writ application which has given rise to the impugned order. Learned Single Judge had declined to interfere with the order of transfer. Mr. Binod Kumar Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s transfer has been effected at the instance of the Minister and the District Magistrate had acted on its dictate and on this ground alone the order of transfer is vitiated. He also points out that the stigma has been cast upon the petitioner while passing the order of transfer and that has been done without holding any inquiry, which also vitiates the order of transfer. Personal difficulties of the petitioner, i.e., the illness of his son as also the wife have also been projected to show that the order of transfer is malafide. In support of the submission reliance has been placed on a decision of this court in the case of Sri Abdul Muttalib Versus State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1985 PLJR 931 and in the case of Vishwanath Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2003 (3) PLJR 879. We do not find any substance in the submission of the - 3 - learned Counsel for the petitioner and the decisions relied upon in no way support the case of the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of transfer filed writ application. This Court while disposing of the earlier writ application directed the authority to dispose of the representation by a reasoned order. In view of the command of this Court, the authority was to consider the reasons which weighed with it for transferring the petitioner, while rejecting the representation. The initial order of transfer does not cast any stigma on the petitioner and the reasons given while rejecting the impugned order under the order of this Court, in our opinion, shall not vitiate the order of transfer. We do not find any merit in the appeal. It is dismissed in limine. (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, ACJ.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) avin