Civil Writ Petition No. 13805 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 13805 of 2009 Date of decision: 20.10.2009 Satish Mittal ...petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner, who is Chartered Accountant at Faridabad was appointed as member of District Consumer Redressal Forum at Faridabad from 1997 to 1999. He was appointed for 5 years in the year 2006. This was in response to the applications invited on 25.7.2005. He had joined at Faridabad on 6.9.2006. On 13.8.2009, order transferring the petitioner from district Faridbad to Sirsa was passed. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition on the ground that this transfer order is contrary to the service condition of the rules governing the appointment of the petitioner and as such is liable to be quashed. Notice of motion was issued. Reply has been filed. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and others versus Anand Prakash Solanki in Civil Appeal No. 6733 of 2003 decided on 25.8.2003. In the above noted Civil Appeal, the order of transfer was Civil Writ Petition No. 13805 of 2009 2 under challenge. The writ petition against the transfer was allowed by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, by observing that the concept of transfer is unknown for the President and members of District Fora in the scheme of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore, a person appointed as President of any District Forum cannot be transferred by the State Government. Feeling aggrieved against this order passed by the High Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred to Special Leave Petition leading to the decision in the above noted Civil Appeal. After making detailed reference to hierarchy of the Commission and the Fora and also the provisions governing the composition of the District Forum and the administrative control as contained in the provisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that National Commission, State Commission and the District Fora have been constituted to exercise jurisdiction over such grievances of the aggrieved person, which were earlier available to be raised before the conventional courts established under the Constitution or under the law. Accordingly, such persons are to function judicially consistently with the procedure as laid down by the Act and the Rules. The Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically differed with the view held by the High Court that the President, members of District Fora are not liable to be transferred inasmuch as there is no single cadre of such persons in the State. The observations in this regard are as under:- “ It is true that there is no cadre as such of the President and the members of the District Fora contemplated by the Act and this is the principal consideration which has prevailed with the High Court for Civil Writ Petition No. 13805 of 2009 3 holding that the President and members of District Fora are not liable to be transferred inasmuch as there is no single cadre of such persons in the State. We cannot subscribe to that view. The existence of one cadre is not essential and is not the sine qua non to make available the power of transfer. As District Fora, more than one, are constituted within the State, there is nothing wrong in the President or members of one District Forum being appointed by transfer of another District Forum, subject to the requirement of sub-Section (1A) of Section 10 being satisfied. Such appointment by transfer shall be made by the State Government but only on the recommendation of the committee consisting of the President of the State Commission and two Secretaries, i.e. the committee composed as per sub-Section (1A) of Section 10. Such appointment by transfer cannot be a frequent or routine feature. The power is there but is meant to be exercised sparingly and only in public interest or in such exigencies of administration as would satisfy the purpose of constituting the District Forum. The broader concept of 'transfer' is a change of the place of employment within an organization. Transfer is an incidence of public service and the power to transfer is available to the exercised by the employer unless an express bar or restraint on the exercise of such power can be spelt out. The power, like all other administrative powers, has to be exercised bona fide.” Civil Writ Petition No. 13805 of 2009 4 As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the power is available but is meant to be exercised sparingly and only in public interest or in such exigencies of administration as would satisfy the purpose of constituting the District Forum. Even concept of transfer has also been considered to observe that it is an incidence of public service and the power to transfer is available to be exercised by the employer unless an express bar or restraint on the exercise of such power can be spelt out. There is no allegation that the power to transfer the petitioner is not bonafide exercise of power. There are no allegations of any malafide. The cancellation of the transfer is sought only on the ground that the post is not transferable. In view of this categorical law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the post is to be held a transferable one. No case for interference in the present wit petition thus is made out. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. October 20, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE