IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 731 of 2005 Between: M.Anjaneyulu, S/o.M.Seetha Ramulu, R/o.Qtr.No.49, Type III, Mint Colony, Cherlapally, RR District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director General, CISF FH Qtrs.CGO's Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 03. 2 The Group Commandant, CISF GP. H.Qrs. Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Commandant, CISF Unit IG Mint, Hyderabad-51. .....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 an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by directing the respondents to defer the order of transfer dated 18-1- 2005 issued vide proceedings No.38015 /CISF/IGM/IZT/Adm/2005/158 from Cherlapally, Hyderabad to FSTPP, Farakka, West Bengal till May, 2005. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.SANJEEVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.ARAJASHEKAR REDDY (SC FOR CG) The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to defer the order of transfer, dated 18.1.2005 issued by the 3rd respondent in Proceedings No.E-38015/CISF/IGM/IZT 21/Adm/2005/158. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the marriage of the petitioner’s daughter has been fixed on 15.4.2005 and also the petitioner’s children are studying in Hyderabad and this transfer order is effected in the middle of the academic year. Therefore, he prays that the transfer order may be deferred till May, 2005. The learned standing counsel for the respondents has contended that the petitioner requested the respondents to defer his transfer order for some reason or other, and the respondents, after considering the petitioner’s request deferred his transfer twice, but the petitioner again made a representation, dated 18.1.2005 requesting to defer the order of transfer till May, 2005, which is nothing but dragging on the matter. The order of transfer is neither contrary to the Rules governing the transfer orders nor a way of punishment. The petitioner is transferred only on administrative grounds. Since the respondents have already considered the representation, dated 18.1.2005 of the petitioner twice, there is no need to give any further direction to consider the petitioner’s representation. Therefore, the impugned proceedings do not suffer from any legal infirmities so as to call for interference by this Court. The writ petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J.) 25th January, 2005. bcj To 1 The Director General, CISF FH Qtrs.CGO's Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 03. 2 The Group Commandant, CISF GP. H.Qrs. Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Commandant, CISF Unit IG Mint, Hyderabad-51. 4 Two C.D. copies.