WP(C) 4944/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Ms. D. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the grievance raised and also the nature of the order I have proposed to pass, no notice need be issued to the respondents. The petitioner who is a bank employee working in the Bank of India is aggrieved by Annexure-B o rder dated 30.08.2011 by which he has been transferred to Tinsukia Town Branch f rom Panerihat Branch to which place he was recently transferred by order dated 1 8.05.2011. Alleging frequent transfer, it is the case of the petitioner that he having been transferred to Panerihat Branch on 18.05.2011, within three months h e ought not have transferred to Tinsukia by the impugned order dated 30.08.2011. Another ground urged by the petitioner is that the impugned order 30.08.2011 is not founded on bonafide exercise of power and has been issued malafide. Having regard to the limited scope of interference in the matter of tran sfer exercising the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this writ petition is disposed of providing that the authority to who m the petitioner has made Annexure-D representation dated 17.09.2011, shall dis pose of the same considering all the relevant facts and in accordance with law. Let the representation be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, but at any r ate, not later than 10.10.2011. In the meantime, status quo as on today in resp ect of the impugned order dated 30.08.2011 so far as the same relates to the pet itioner shall be maintained. The petitioner may obtain the certified copy of this order and produce the same to the bank authority alongwith the copy of the writ petition and its enclosures for their necessary follow up action.