WP(C) 5040/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY In challenge is the order dated 22.10.2009 of the Commissioner, Guwahati Municipal Corporation, Guwahati (hereafter referred to as the Corporati on), amongst others, transferring the petitioner from the Assessment Branch, Dis pur Zone to be attached to the Additional Commissioner. I have heard Mr. BD Konwar, learned counsel for the petitioner a nd Mr. S Chamaria, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. Briefly stated the petitioner’s pleaded case is that he is prese ntly serving as UDA of the Corporation at its Assessment Branch, Dispur Zone. B y the aforementioned order, he has been transferred on the completion of only 2 years from his present place of posting. According to the petitioner, he has be en picked up for the transfer at the instance of the respondent No. 5, who is th e Assistant General Secretary of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation Employees’ U nion. He has alleged that the said respondent out of personal vendetta has pers uaded the concerned authorities of the Corporation to effect this transfer. Whi le expressing his willingness to be posted in any other branch of the Corporatio n on transfer, the petitioner has voiced his apprehension about the risk of his life in the office to which he has been transferred by the impugned order. To e ndorse his plea of discrimination, the petitioner has asserted that though, he s ought earned leave on medical ground, the same has not been granted as on date. The petitioner in addition, has averred about his wife’s ailments and has conte nded that in the facts and circumstances of the case, if the impugned order is g iven effect to, it would be highly prejudicial to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the ab ove, has urged that in the interest of justice, the impugned order ought to be i nterfered with. The learned Standing Counsel of the Corporation, while endorsin g the petitioner’s transfer to be in public interest, has produced the official records to substantiate his contention. Having regard to the nature of the grievance expressed by the pe titioner, this Court considered it expedient to peruse the official records to r esolve the controversy. On a scrutiny thereof, it appears that the impugned ord er of transfer, whereby, as many as 12 persons have been transferred, including the petitioner, is substantially in compliance of the representations to that ef fect made by many of them. The petitioner, however, is not one of such represen tationists. The records disclose that the petitioner’s wife on 27.10.2009 had a lso submitted a representation before the Governor of the State seeking cancella tion of the impugned order of transfer, which has since been forwarded to the Co mmissioner of the Corporation for disposal on merits. The representation, howev er, has not yet been decided. The records do not disclose any material to subst antiate the apprehension nursed by the petitioner. Be that as it may, having regard to the background in which the impugned order of transfer has been passed, namely, the individual request made by many of the incumbents involved, in the opinion of this Court, the representa tion of the petitioner’s wife ought to have been considered by the concerned aut hority of the Corporation, as well. The Corporation being a statutory authority , it has to be essentially fair, transparent and dispassionate with the employee s and, therefore, it was incumbent on it to consider and dispose of the petition er’s representation on merits. In the above view of the matter, without expressing any opinion with regard either to the validity or otherwise of the impugned order of transfe r vis-a-vis the petitioner or the merit of the request made by his wife in her r epresentation, this petition is closed with a direction to the Commissioner of t he Corporation to consider and dispose of the said representation within a perio d of 1 (one) week herefrom. For this period of 1 (one) week, the implementation of the impugned order of transfer vis-à-vis the petitioner would not be insiste d upon. The petition stands disposed in the above terms. No costs.