IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2011 / 26TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 24046 of 2011(E) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. P.P.NARAYANAN, SCPO NO.787 (GASI), AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. MAHENDRAN.M, CPO NO.1560, ADHUR POLICE STATION,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. MADHUSOODHANAN C.V., CPO NO.1571, HOSDURG POLICE STATION,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. RAMAAAKRISHNAN V., SCPO NO.1066, HOSDURG POLICE STATION,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. RAMACHANDRAN.A, CPO NO.1572, HOSDURG POLICE STATION,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 6. RATHEESH K.V., CPO NO.1235, BEDAKAM POLICE STATION,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, (KERALA POLICE CHIEF), POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE, (DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF), DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, KASARAGOD-671 121. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.M.ABDUL KHADAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 24046/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER NO.A1/12275/11 G DATED 29/06/2011. P2: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.609/1958 DATED 19/05/1958. P3: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS)NO.231/2004 HOME DATED 30/06/2004. P4: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT DIRECTIVE NO.1/2011 DATED 09/02/2011. P5: COPY OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE NO.1/2006 DATED 05/06/2006 P6: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07/08/2011. P8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/07/2011 IN WPC. NO.17840/11. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.24046 of 2011-E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioners who are Police personnel working in different police stations in Kasargode district have approached this Court challenging Ext.P1 transfer order by which a number of persons working in different police stations in Kasargode district are transferred to different police stations. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the transfers are in violation of the transfer norms. The petitioners have been transferred to most inconvenient and distant places. The transfer has been ordered at an untimely moment, disrupting their normal lives. Even persons who have not completed the normal period of three years in a station have been subjected to transfer. Therefore, according to the petitioners, their transfers are liable to be set aside by this Court. The counsel for the WP(C).No.24046/2011-E. 2 petitioner also places reliance on Ext.P8 judgment of this Court, which has been reported in Madhu v. Director General of Police [2011(4) KLT SN 26 (Case No.25)]. In the said judgment, this Court had deprecated enmasse transfers made in Ext.P1. According to the petitioners, pursuant to Ext.P8 judgment, the persons who have been transferred by Ext.P1 have been given convenient postings at various places, as evidenced by Ext.P6. The petitioners also submit that Ext.P7 representation submitted by them is pending consideration of the District Police Chief. Therefore, they seek the issue of appropriate directions for the consideration of Ext.P7. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent justifying the order of transfer, Ext.P1. Since Ext.P7 is pending consideration of the second respondent, I do not think it necessary to consider the contentions of the parties on the merit. It is sufficient that Ext.P7 is directed to be considered and disposed of without delay. WP(C).No.24046/2011-E. 3 3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the grievances of the petitioners detailed in their representation, evidenced herein by Ext.P7, in accordance with law and the judgment of this Court referred to herein above, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-