WP(C) 846/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA This writ petition has been filed by the President of Manikpur G aon Panchayat. The subject matter is the transfer of the respondent No. 5 who ha s been working in the capacity of the Secretary of the same very Gaon Panchayat. According to the petitioner there was public complaints against the style and functioning of the respondent No. 5. Having regard to such complai nts, the respondent No. 5 was once transferred from the present place of posting vide order dated 20.11.08. The order was subsequently stayed and thereafter he was again transferred to another place by yet another order dated 13.02.09. This time also, the order having been stayed by the impugned order dated 20.02.09 (A nnexure-VIII), the petitioner has filed this writ petition. According to the respondent No. 5, the petitioner does not have any locus standi to question the transfer and posting of the respondent No. 5. I t appears that by order dated 20.11.2008, the respondent No. 5 was transferred f rom the present place of posting and in his place one Shri Dipak Kalita was post ed. The order was subsequently modified by order dated 28.01.09 posting Shri Dip ak Kalita to another place. Thereafter Annexure-7 order dated 13.02.09 was issue d posting the petitioner and said Shri Kalita to each one’s place. Shri Kalita i s not aggrieved by the order of transfer, but it is the President of the Gaon Pa nchayat who has filed the petition questioning the Annexure-VIII order dated 20. 02.09 by which the transfer order dated 13.02.09 has been stayed until further o rder. I have heard Mr. S.D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitio ner as well as Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. I hav e also heard Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate. According to Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 working in the capacity of the Secretary, Gaon Panchayat ha s created a lot of problem in the functioning of Gaon Panchayat necessitating hi s transfer from there. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 referring to Ann exure-2 enquiry report dated 15.11.08, submits that the transfer order has been issued at the behest of the petitioner whose husband is a contractor under the G aon Panchayat. In the enquiry report dated 15.11.08, it has been stated that th e respondent No. 5 has been working in the Gaon Panchayat since 1994 and that th ere is ego clash between the respondent No. 5 and the petitioner. It has also be en stated that the respondent No. 5 convened a particular meeting called RPRS/20 08-2009 (first meeting) as Nodal Officer as per the direction of the authority wherein the officers of the department participated. It has further been observ ed that the petitioner also convened another RPRS meeting simultaneously fixing another venue, but such meeting was not approved by the higher authority and all the matters discussed in the said meeting were against the Secretary of the Gao n Panchayat, i.e. the respondent No. 5. Apart from the fact that the petitioner is not holding the post of Secretary of the Gaon Panchayat, but she is the President of the Gaon Panchay at, other incumbent namely, Shri Dipak Kalita who was earlier transferred to the place of the petitioner, is not aggrieved by the impugned order of stay. He is also not party to this proceeding. If we go by the enquiry report indicated abov e, there is no mention of any allegation against the respondent No. 5. Further, the transfer order has been stayed ’until further order’ and has not been cancel led. Thus there scope for re-consideration of the matter by the Chief Executive Officer, Barpeta Zila Parishad. But he will have to bear in mind that the transf er of the respondent No. 5 cannot be resorted to at the behest of the petitioner . Considering the matter in its entirety and for the reasons state d above, the writ petition is disposed of providing that it will be open for the Chief Executive Officer, Barpeta Zila Parishad to deal with the matter in accor dance with law. The stay order passed on 20.03.09 stands vacated.