IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 896 of 2009 Between: Sri.P.Janardhan Rao, LSACM(D) 123933-T S/o.Surya Maleswara Rao 321, FLT, INS DEGA NDA Post, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Union of India, represented Commodore Bureau of Sailor, Cheetah Camp Mankhurd, Mumbai - 400 088. 2 The Flight Commander 321(V) Flight INS-DEGA, NAD-post- Visakhapatnam-09. 3 Sri S.Nanda Commander/Sr. Pilot, 321(V) Flight INS-DEGA, NAD- post-Visakhapatnam-09. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in passing the Transfer Order vide Order No. AVNT 36 Dt.02.12.2008 in so far Petitioner is concern is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Art-14 & 21 of Constitution of India and in violation of Block-Transfer-2009 List and consequently set aside the same in so for Petitioner is concern and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.D.PANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : ORDER The petitioner is questioning the action of the 1st respondent in transferring him to INAS 321 FSS Mumbai in this writ petition. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the first respondent transferred him even before completing 5 years of stay at Visakahapatnam and whereas others such as Krishna, and Ch.Rani are allowed continued at Visakhapatnam even after completing their maximum tenure. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri A.Raja Sekhar Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General received notice on behalf of the respondents. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the only son to his father, who has been suffering from an ailment and his presence is necessary at Visakhapatnam. He further submits that the petitioner has been relieved from Visakhapatnam and reported to duty in Bombay apprehending disciplinary action in case of his not reporting at Bombay. Sri A.Raja Sekhar Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that the petitioner sought for extension of time for getting relieved from Visakhapatnam and his request has been considered and extended upto 26th January, 2009 and thereafter, the petitioner got himself relieved and joined in Bombay. Such is the situation, the question of cancelling the transfer proceedings impugned in the writ petition does not arise. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application to the respondents seeking his transfer to Visakhapatnam or nearby branches of the respondents so as to enable him to attend on his ailing father in which case the respondents has to consider the application in accordance with the Rules/ Regulations in force and pass appropriate orders within four weeks thereafter. Writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. _________ 13-2-2009 Note: Issue CC by 10 days. (B.O)rkk