IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2011 / 27TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 19466 of 2011(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- BINUKUMAR .S., VAISHNAVAM, MANIKKYAPURAM, PUTHUKULANGARA P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.VINOD J.DEV, SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. L.G. SURESH BABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.19466/2011-G: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. S.3-02/2011 DTD. 17/05/2011 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.S.3-01/2011 DTD. 12/07/2011 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT WHICH APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DATED 15/07/2011. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT WHICH APPEARED IN JANAYUGAM DTD. 16/07/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.19466 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 18th July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as Village Assistant in the Land Acquisition Section of Collectorate, Thiruvananthapuram. As per Ext.P2, the petitioner has been transferred and posted to the Office of the Special Tahsildar (LANH), Thiruvananthapuram. It is challenging Ext.P2 that this writ petitions has been filed. Evidently, Ext.P2 would reveal that the transfer is effected within the District itself. Though the petitioner contends that it is nothing but a colourable exercise of power no material has been produced to substantiate the said contention. Vague statements such as a power of transfer has been exercised improperly or that the order of transfer is a colourable exercise of power are not sufficient to call for interference with an order of transfer. The petitioner has failed to make out a case calling interference. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS