IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 13600 of 2009 Between: P.Venkata Nageswara Rao S/o. Appa Rao O/o. CTO, Aryapuram Circle, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, by its Principal Secretary, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Government of Andhra Pradesh by its Principal Secretary, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad. 4 The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Kakinada Division, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Kakinada, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in non-implementation of policy of Government as laid in G.O. Ms. No.134, Finance (W&M) Dept., dt.09.05.2008 & G.O. Ms. No.143, Finance ( W&M) Dept., dt.21.06.2007 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct them to effect the transfer of the employees in terms of the said G.O.Ms. No.143, Finance (W&M) Department dated 21.06.2007 & G.O.Ms. No.169, Finance (W&M) Department dated 17.06.2009. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. B. SASIBUSHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: G.P. FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: G.P. FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES The Court made the following : ORDER: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) In this public interest litigation, the petitioner wants this Court to interfere with the transfer policy of the State. In our opinion, it is not for this Court to decide as to how the transfer policy should be framed and how an individual should be transferred. In the circumstances, learned Advocate for the petitioner wants the contents of the petition to be considered by the Government authorities so that the same can be looked into by the authorities. A copy of the petition along with this order be forwarded to respondent No.1 so that the same can be considered by respondent No.1. In view of the above direction, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. _______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 09.7.2009 bnr