IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9510 of 2008 Between: M. Venkateswarlu, S/o. Kistaiah, R/o. H.No. 246, J-3, Mustafanagar, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Divisional Security Commissioner, Sanchalan Bhavan, 1st Floor, Secunderabad. 2 The Inspector, R.P.F. Khammam. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in transferring the petitioner on the direction of the 1st respondent from Parli t o Khammam and Khammam to GNT Division vide letter No. IX/TRF/PRLI/08, DT. 22-4-2008 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to discharge his duties as R.P.F. Constable at Khammam and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VISWANATHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.J.Ashok Kumar The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9510 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force. On 23.03.2007, he was transferred from Secunderabad to Khammam. Vide orders, dated 14.08.2008, the 1st respondent transferred him to Parli. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.582 of 2008. It was disposed of on 18.01.2008, leaving it open to the petitioner to make a representation, expressing his grievances. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from Parli to Guntur, vide orders, dated 22.04.2008. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard Sri T.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.Ashok Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Viewed in isolation, the impugned order may appear to be the one having been passed within a few months from the date of the previous order, through which the petitioner was transferred from Khammam to Parli. However, the fact remains that it came to be passed, on a representation made by the petitioner, expressing his difficulty in working at Parli. The petitioner is a native of Khammam District and he is said to have represented to the respondents that it would be difficult to look after his parents by working at Parli. Obviously taking the representation of the petitioner into account, the respondents passed the impugned order. In a way, the impugned order helps the petitioner, inasmuch as he was posted to a place, which is nearer to Khammam. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 29.04.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9510 of 2008 Date: 29.04.2008 JSU