WP(C) 824/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI Heard Mr. T. C. Khatri, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, and Mr. B. J. Ghosh, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behal f of the State respondents. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of In dia, the petitioner, who has been working as an employee of the respondents, has put to challenge the Notification, dated 17.11.2009, whereby the petitioner, am ongst others, was transferred from Rangia, district Kamrup (Rural), and posted a s Sub-Registrar, his place of posting being Rupahi, in the district of Dhubri, t he ground of his transfer being that the petitioner was a resident of Changsari, under Kamalpur Police Station, which falls within the district of Kamrup (Rural ). While considering the writ petition, this Court passed an order, on 05.0 3.2009, on the basis of the instructions, which the learned Government Advocate had received and presented before the Court, and also the materials on record as well as the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. The order, dated 05. 03.2009, being adequately explicit, is reproduced below: The written instructions along with the records placed before the Court by Mr. B. J. Ghosh, learned Government Advocate, indicate that the reason for the trans fer of the petitioner from Rangia in Kamrup (Rural) district to Rupahi in Dhubri District as per the Election Commission’s guidelines is on account of the fact that the petitioner belongs to Kamrup (Rural) District. In this regard, materia ls have been laid before the Court to show that the original residence of the pe titioner is at Changsari under Kamalpur Police Station, which is within Kamrup ( Rural) District. The records placed before the Court, however, indicate that th e petitioner had submitted an application dated 20.06.2006 for correction of the entries in his Service Book with regard to the change of his permanent residenc e. In the said application, it was mentioned that the new permanent address of the petitioner would be - House No. 29, Bye Lane 2, Naharani Path, Dispur Last G ate, Guwahati-781006. As the petitioner had intimated that he had changed his permanent addres s to a place, which is outside Kamrup (Rural) District and is included within th e Kamrup (Metro) District, the stand taken by the respondents that his posting i n Rangia is within his home district, i.e., Kamrup (Rural), is not correct. Tha t apart, under the Election Commission guidelines, a person, against whom a crim inal case is pending, is not to be allotted to any poll-related duties. In the writ petition filed, a statement has been made to the effect that there is a cri minal case pending against the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, in any ev ent, cannot be allotted any poll duties. In view of the above, the Court is of the prima facie view that the Elec tion Commission guidelines for transfer of officials in view of the ensuing Lok Sabha Elections will not be attracted to the case of the petitioner. The operat ion of the impugned order, dated 17.02.2009, in so far as the petitioner is conc erned, therefore, will remain stayed. The respondents may seek vacation/modific ation/alteration of this order, if so advised. List after ten days for admission hearing. Pursuant to the interim directions, which had been passed on 05.03.2009, as indicated above, the impugned transfer order could not be given effect to, a nd, in the meanwhile, the elections, which were scheduled to be held, have alrea dy taken place. Coupled with the above, the ground of transfer of the petitioner, as ref lected by the order, dated 05.03.2009, aforementioned, shows that the petitioner ’s original/permanent residence was at Changsari, under Kamalpur Police Station, and the petitioner, later on, submitted to the respondent concerned an applicat ion, seeking correction of his permanent address from Changsari to a place, whic h falls within Kamrup (Metro) district. The assertion of the petitioner, that h is permanent residence is within the Kamrup (Metro) district, has not been refut ed by the respondents, till date, despite the fact that the above observations w ere made as far back as on 05.03.2009. Considering the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, t his writ petition, without expressing any opinion with regard to the correctness and/or veracity of the petitioner’s claim that his permanent residence is withi n the Kamrup (Metro) district, disposed of as having become infructuous leaving the respondents at liberty to pass further or other order(s) of transfer, if so deemed necessary. In case any transfer order is, now, made by the respondents a nd the petitioner feels aggrieved by such an order, the petitioner shall remain at liberty to take recourse to such provisions of law as may be permissible. No order as to cost.