IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13882 of 2009 Between: G. Satya Prakash Rao S/o. late G. Ramakrishna Rao R/o. H.No. 16-7-220, Azampura, P.O. Sahifa Hyderabad , Working as Inspector of Central Excise. ... PETITIONER And 1 Chief Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad Zone, L.B. Stadium Road, Basheerbag, Hyderabad. 2 Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Hyderabad II-Commissionerate, L.B. Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. ...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 a writ of Certiorari calling for the records in OA 442of 2009 dt. 30-6-09 from Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same and consequently declare the order dt. 14-5-2009 vide Estt. Order (NGO) NO.13/2009 as illegal, and arbitrary and quash the same in so far as this Petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents : C.APPAIAH SHARMA (SR.SC FOR CB EXCISE) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13882 of 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Swaroop Reddy) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner/applicant challenging the order dated 30.06.2009 in O.A. No. 442 of 2009 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). 2. The O.A. was filed challenging the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad-II, dated 14.05.2009 in transferring the petitioner/applicant from Hyderabad to Vizag. Though several questions are raised with regard to jurisdiction of the transferring authority etc., we are not inclined to consider any of the questions in view of the fact that the Tribunal has already considered the same issue of jurisdiction of transferring authority in O.As.587/2007 and batch, which were filed by some other effected persons. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner/applicant is being prosecuted in CC No.32/2005 on the file of the CBI Court, Hyderabad for an offence under Prevention of Corruption Act and the trial of the said case has commenced recently. In view of the commencement of the trial of the case on the file of the CBI Court, Hyderabad, we deem it appropriate to continue the petitioner in and around Hyderabad for a limited period. The petitioner had worked recently at Nizamabad for a period of four years i.e., from 2004 to 2008, and since about one year he was working in Hyderabad, now he is transferred to Vizag. We are of the opinion that when the trial is going on in CBI case at Hyderabad, it would be inconvenient to the petitioner/applicant to face the trial in the CBI case by coming from Vizag to Hyderabad and it would also cause dislocation of office work. Admittedly there is no allegation against the petitioner that he is interfering with the trial of the CBI case in any manner. Still it is desirable to keep the petitioner away from Hyderabad, but at a nearer place - any place within the commissionerate, at least for a reasonable period so that he can attend trial of the CBI case. 4. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner by posting him to a place nearer to Hyderabad - any place within the commissionerate for a period of six months enabling him to attend the trial of the CBI case at Hyderabad. After six months, in case the trial of the CBI case is not completed also, the respondents are at liberty to transfer him to any other place, in accordance with their norms and rules. No order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J 13th July, 2009 Md/Dsr Note: Furnish copy in two days. B/o Md/Dsr