IN THE HIGH COURT OF ICATURE OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 4’282 2004! /’Shekhar Sinha S/O‘ Govardhan Sinha Aged about 37 years, Constable no. 134 RS. - City Kotwali Dist? Dhamtari ( CG.) PETITIONER: VERSUS /1) State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretary, Department of Home ( Mantralaya) D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) 2) Deputy Police inspector General (Admin) ' Police Head Quarter Raipur (C.G.) 3) Superintendent of Police Dhamtari DisttrDhamtari (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR” ISSUENCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT (s), ORDER (S) DIRECTIONS (S). '—~ XI—HC-78 1‘ L, ’/ Emma, m,W , Wv9~N0. 42$ o..‘oo¢..."o WW(W) 270 .uug. W 2 0 mmw (WWW mwm WW§WW ' azwm 03.03.2005 Shri Vimndra Shanna , learned commel for the petitioner. Shri U.N.S, D60, Gm respondenm no‘ 1 to 3. Heard. Th6 petitioncr has c order dated 028.2004 (Am transf€rred from Dhamtari h Leamled counsel fc Dantewada is a Naxah'te in almadv work€d in that are: therefore, he should not h ave been transferred again to the Naxalité area. He also s11 bmits that the impugned transfer order is ah outcome of malz Hide as one Saxpanch Komal Yad-u i$ having inimical relations i with the family members of the petitioner aiid the transfer has been effected at the instance of the said Sarpanch. He draws the attention of this Court to the Medical Certificate (Anne ire P—S) and submits that the petitioner was medically e amined by the Boaid and it has // 'exnment Advocate, for ‘the State/ ‘Lallenged the validity of trallsfer {exure P—4) by which he has been 9 Dantewara, South Bastar (CG). r the petitioner submits that fested area and the petitioner has i at Beejapur for about 2V2 years, / @ XI—HC—78 @ ' mam mm‘m WWW mmerrg—aw mamém been mentioned in this document that due to some injury on the right mée, the petitioner State has denied the Return has been filed by the State, It has been pointed out that the contentions of the petitioner. t L1 1seueti . 1n . a normal way on order of tranSfer has bee: ut the report of medical Board it Ab is certificate issued by the Board has baen contended that t service records of the petitioner, (106$ not form part of the therefoxe, no comments can "Je madé on the é‘ame. I have heard'leained counsel at length and have perused I the record’s of the case, In the series ofjudgmints, the’Apex Court has held that the transfer is an incidencaof service and is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shoWn to be clearly arbitrary or visited by malaide or infraction of any prescribed noriins of principles governing the transfer; decisiohs réported in 199 Kanta Rag '—Vs- suite o£ orissg) and AIR 1993 sc 2444 {Ilniott oflndia ~1I- S.L. Abnas), Vthe‘apex Court has laid dobrxw is not flt for 6X61cises. administrative grounds; Referring to the : (Sunni) 4 SCC 1694Ambani a HWWW WW.ooooootooooc020.coeoo . W p NO H32 2cm wq—l 9 WW(W> F2- ‘XI-HC-js 3a W, Wan—gr, W WOO’OtotoOOOétQOOOOOO . M‘p‘No.’ lg; W 2W 200 mm(m) ’ mweffg‘z‘rm g4 s3 ... . this law in the matter of gg wriya Vidyalgya Sangathan —Vs- Damodar Prasad Pandey and others reported in 2004 AIR S.C.W. 5563. r The above series 'of judgments pronounced by .the apex Court at van‘ous points‘ of 11‘me go to Show that a very limite scope is given for interference with an order of transfer pas‘sed by the competent aumoriry. If the juriediction and the authority is not challenged nor there ‘is any‘c'hallenge on the ground of'violation of any statutory rulee then unless the malaflde, arbitrariness or extraneous considerations are established by coming forward with definite pleadings and by bringing some evidence on record, it cannot be said that the transfer which has been: shown ,to be purely on the administrative exigency Wil] not be accepted to be a normal transfer. Learned counsel for ti e petitioner submits that since the said Salpanch is having inimical relations with the family members of the petitioner, therefore, the order; of transfer has //// / d X1-HC~78 wPNQ 4w; xmc? 5”? 200 WW(W) WWW WWW WWWW WM§WW %aa%tr3n%$ 136611 e£fectéd. Thf: said Sax}: anch has nsither beEn made as a party respondent in this ca this fact has been broug established On record that tl‘ ' instailce of the said Sarpeu made against him, but unles reply iS sought from him, 11c Vpoints. aforesaid transfer has been effected at the instance of the said Sarpanch namely Kdmal Yadiu. About. the arguments 'is a medical certificate, it 's‘ declared unfit for exercise ('1 posted iii a particular areal certainly he is required t Since the certificate has not been made part of the se ice record of the nen‘tioner, this point has not been consider d hy the authority " While passing/ e Vthe order of'transfer of the etitioner. ~4 e nor, any evidence in relation to on record. l1; has not been e transfer has been effected at the f 10h. Through the allegations are, s he is made narty in this case and comments can be made on these to accept the contention that the 1 am not mclined advanced on Annexure P-5 which iems that the petitioner has been to, If a person working in force is and is assigned with field duty, undertake exercise or physical trainiiig'‘to perform his dut'es. / XI-HC-78 WW,W,W Wm.wnenw”noumn ‘ .NO. 4%; 1&0 200% mammimr) g}; WWW WWW Wmm mw#w®w %aw%tran%a1 __é, The said‘mpressntam of 0116 month from the date by thci authom'ty shall be accordingly. Th6 pétition stands f1] dimotion. QC. as per rules. m sham be decided within a period of its Wing aJQd the decision taken communicated Ito the petitioner 1a11y dieposed of with the aforeSaid Sd/— ;,/ ‘ Sunil Kumar Sinha‘f > V Judge 7