IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19161 of 2009(M) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ V.V.RAJEEVAN, S/O.NANU, AGED 47 YEARS, SECRETARY, MOOLIYAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KASARAGOD DISTRICT (UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER TO VATTAVADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IDUKKI DISTRICT). BY ADVS.MR.V.A.MUHAMMED MR.M.SAJJAD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, TRIVANDRUM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 19161 of 2009 M =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.V.A.Muhammed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner who was working as Secretary of Mooliyar Grama Panchayat in Kasaragod district has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 order transferring him to Vattavada Grama Panchayat in Idukki District. The petitioner submits that though in Ext.P1 draft transfer order, the proposal was to transfer him to Karivelloor Grama Panchayat in Kannur district, when Ext.P2 order of transfer was issued, on the direction of the Government, which was not communicated to him, he was transferred and posted in Vattavada Grama Panchayat in Idukki District. Aggrieved thereby, he has moved the Secretary to Government, Local Self Government Department by submitting Ext.P3 representation dated 15-6-2009 seeking transfer and posting either in Karivelloor Grama Panchayat, as proposed in Ext.P1 draft transfer order, or in a neighbouring panchayat. W.P.(C) No. 19161/09 2 3. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the petitioner was transferred to Idukki district, pursuant to the direction issued by the Government, in view of the fact that Vigilance Case No.2 of 2009 of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau has been registered against him, on the allegation that he had demanded illegal gratification from a resident of the Mooliyar Grama Panchayat where he was formerly working. 4. In the draft transfer order, evidenced by Ext.P1, the proposal was to transfer the petitioner from Kasaragod to Kannur district. However, when Ext.P2 order of transfer was passed, he was transferred to Idukki district. It is now evident that the petitioner was transferred from Kasaragod district, in view of the registration of Vigilance Case No. 2 of 2009 against him. The object sought to be achieved by transferring the petitioner was to remove him from Kasaragod district. That could have been achieved by transferring the petitioner to another district. However, when Ext.P2 order of transfer was passed, the petitioner was transferred to a station in Idukki district, which is about 200 Kmts. away from his place of residence. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should pursue the representation filed by him before the Government instead of seeking the intervention of this Court. The Government have the machinery to ascertain whether vacancies exist in any of the northern districts in which the W.P.(C) No. 19161/09 3 petitioner can be accommodated. The Government can also transfer another incumbent to accommodate the petitioner in the northern districts, without causing much inconvenience to the person who is thus transferred out. Since the petitioner has already submitted Ext.P3 representation before the Government, he should pursue the said remedy instead of seeking the intervention of this Court. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Secretary to Government, Local Self Government Department to consider Ext.P3 representation and pass orders thereon after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. This shall be done within two months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the Secretary to Government. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. mn.