WP(C) 1553/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI Heard Mr. S. S. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. S. Seal, le arned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. Also heard Mr. R. K. Borah, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing on behalf of responde nt No.3. By order, dated 15.2.2007, i.e. more than four years ago, the petitioner had bee n transferred and posted at Guwahati Sadar Enforcement as Inspector of Excise. B efore his transfer to Guwahati Sadar Enforcement the petitioner had worked, at P ragjyotishpur Excise Circle, as Inspector of Excise for 11 months, Pragjyotishpu r Excise Circle also being a part of the Kamrup district. The petitioner joined as Inspector of Excise, at Guwahati Sadar Enforcement, on 20.02.2010. By order, dated 9th of March, 2011, the petitioner was transferred to work under M/S Skol Breweries, Changsari, district - Kamrup, and the vacancy, caused due to his tra nsfer was sought to be filled by transferring respondent No.5 at Guwahati Sadar Enforcement. It is this order, dated 9.3.2011, whereby the petitioner stood tran sferred to Changsari, which stands impugned by the petitioner in this writ petit ion. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted that after mak ing of the order, dated 9.3.2011, it came to the notice of the State respondents that the respondent No.5 was from Kamrup Metropolitan district and he could not have been appointed, in his own district, under the guidelines issued by the El ection Commission of India. The order, dated 9.3.2011, has, therefore, been modi fied by issuing another order, dated 15.3.2011, whereby the respondent No.5 has already been transferred as Inspector of Excise at M/S Seven Sisters Trade and D istilleries (Bottling Plant) Amingaon, which is outside the district of Kamrup ( M). Still dissatisfied, the petitioner has pursued this writ petition. The fact that the State respondents have corrected the order of transfer of resp ondent No.5 by issuing subsequent order, dated 15.3.2011, makes it clear that th e petitioner cannot have grievance against the transfer of the respondent No.5 b y earlier order, dated 9.3.2011, whereby the respondent No.5 was posted as Inspe ctor of Excise, Guwahati Sadar Enforcement, district - Kamrup (Metro). This apar t, the petitioner has been working as Inspector of Excise, Guwahati Sadar Enforc ement, District - Kamrup (Metr4o), since 15.2.2007 and has, thus, completed far longer than three years of normal tenure of his service at Guwahati. Under the r elevant policy guidelines of the State Government, the petitioner could have bee n, and ought to have been, transferred out of the district of Kamrup (Metro). In view of what had been indicated above, the petitioner cannot challenge the im pugned order of transfer, dated 9.3.2011, nor can he challenge and has, in fact, not challenged the order, dated 15.3.2011. Situated thus, it is clear that the petitioner has not been able to make out any case warranting this Court’s interf erence with the impugned order, dated 9.3.2011, in exercise of extraordinary jur isdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has, however, submitted that the petitioner’s elder brother has b een suffering from cancer and the petitioner’s presence, at Guwahati, is require d to look after his brother. The petitioner has also submitted that his wife has suffered from brain haemorrhage and she is undergoing treatment and that his so n is studying in Class-III and that in such a situation, the transfer order of t he petitioner has created great mental agony and suffering to him. Merely on the ground that the petitioner’s brother suffers from cancer and/or his wife is und ergoing treatment and/or his child is being educated at Guwahati, the order of t ransfer, dated 9.3.2011, cannot be interfered with. The petitioner shall, howeve r, remain at liberty to make appropriate representation(s) to the State responde nts/ authorities concerned seeking modification of the impugned transfer order o n personal difficulties, which the petitioner claims to have been facing, and if such a representation is made, the respondent/ authority concerned shall consid er and deal with the same in accordance with law. The consideration of the repre sentation, if made by the petitioner, as indicated hereinbefore, shall not be ad versely affected by the fact that this Court has declined to interfere with the impugned order of transfer, dated 9.3.2011. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand dismi ssed with liberty given to the petitioner, as indicated above, to make represent ation to the State respondents. If such a representation is made, the respondent /authorities concerned, particularly, respondent No.1, namely, Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Excise, shall consider and d ispose of the same, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from th e date of receipt of the representation. While making the representation, the pe titioner may enclose, therewith, a certified copy of this order and also the cop y of the writ petition and the annexures thereto.