Deepak Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1048011
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnJul-30-2012
AppellantDeepak Singh
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
w.p.no.11337/12 30-07-2012. shri mrigendra singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. shri b.p.pandey, deputy govt. advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2. shri rajendra tiwari, learned senior counsel with shri t.k.khadka for the respondent no.3. petitioner is working as patwari in patwari halka waidhan-51, r.i.circle waidhan, district singrauli. by the impugned order annexure p-1, the petitioner has been transferred to patwari halka tiyra in the same district and in his place respondent no.3 has been posted. inter alia contending that respondent no.3 is son-in-law of a local mla shri kedar nath shukla and therefore, he is granted adjustment by posting him in place of the petitioner due to influence of his father-in-law, the petitioner seeks for interference into the matter. it is pointed out that earlier also when the petitioner was being displaced by the respondent no.3, the petitioner had approached this court in w.p.no.10316/2011. on 01-07-2011 initially stay was granted and thereafter the petition was 2 disposed of on 13-12-2011 granting liberty to the respondents to take fresh action in the matter. it is stated that in compliance of the order passed in the earlier writ petition on 23-12-2011 vide annexure p-12, posting orders of the petitioner and respondent no.3 were issued. not again challenge is made to the impugned order or transfer only on the ground of adjustment given to the respondent no.3 and therefore, challenge is made to the impugned action. shri rajendra tiwari, learned senior counsel refutes the aforesaid and points out that both petitioner and respondent no.3 are patwaries and to facilitate the administrative work the collector has issued transfer orders posting the employees from one place to another in the same district. it is pointed out by shri rajendra tiwari that annexure p-1 is not an isolated order of transfer of the petitioner, in fact on 15-07-2012, more than 8 patwaries were transferred . two orders passed on the same date i.e.15-07-2012 are annexures p-1 and p-14 respectively and as the transfer is from one patwari halka to another halka in the same district, it is stated by shri tiwari that interference into the matter is not called for. shri tiwari points out that in the entire petition except for contending that respondent no.3 is 3 son-in-law of local mla, no cogent material or evidence is adduced to show as to how and in what manner the mla concerned has influenced the transfer in question. shri tiwari emphasized that except for making vexatious allegation not supported by any cogent evidence and material, interference cannot be made on the ground of political consideration of malafide. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. from the records it is clear that earlier also when the petitioner was transferred he sought for interference into the matter . initially this court granted stay but subsequently the petition was disposed of granting liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order and the respondents have taken action afresh in the matter . the only ground for challenging the transfer is that the respondent no.3 is son-in-law of local mla and therefore, the transfer is made on political consideration due to involvement of political personality. neither the political personality who is said to have influenced the administrative action impugned is impleaded as a party not any material or evidence available on record to show as to how and on what manner the political influence was exercised. if the entire writ 4 petition is scrutinized and if the documents available on record is analyzed, it would be seen that only a vague allegation is made with regard to the respondent no.3 being son-in-law of local mla and local mla having influenced the transfer. merely because respondent no.3 is son-in-law of local mla an assumption cannot be drawn that the transfer is on political consideration. the petitioner should have shown specific instances as to how and on what manner the political consideration has influenced the transfer. shri rajendra tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has rightly pointed out that except for making vague allegation, no cogent evidence and material is adduced to show that the political interference is made not there is any material in support of the aforesaid contention. that apart local mla against whom the use of political interference is alleged is not made a party. under these circumstances, it is not a case where interference can be made by this court. accordingly finding no grounds to interfere into the matter, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recours.to the departmental remedy available. 5 with the aforesaid liberty the petition stands dismissed. c.c.as per rules. (rajendra menon) hsp judge
Judgment:

W.P.NO.11337/12 30-07-2012.

Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri B.P.Pandey, Deputy Govt.

Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel with Shri T.K.Khadka for the respondent no.3.

Petitioner is working as Patwari in Patwari Halka Waidhan-51, R.I.Circle Waidhan, District Singrauli.

By the impugned order Annexure P-1, the petitioner has been transferred to Patwari Halka Tiyra in the same district and in his place respondent no.3 has been posted.

Inter alia contending that respondent no.3 is son-in-law of a local MLA Shri Kedar Nath Shukla and therefore, he is granted adjustment by posting him in place of the petitioner due to influence of his father-in-law, the petitioner seeks for interference into the matter.

It is pointed out that earlier also when the petitioner was being displaced by the respondent no.3, the petitioner had approached this court in W.P.No.10316/2011.

On 01-07-2011 initially stay was granted and thereafter the petition was 2 disposed of on 13-12-2011 granting liberty to the respondents to take fresh action in the matter.

It is stated that in compliance of the order passed in the earlier writ petition on 23-12-2011 vide Annexure P-12, posting orders of the petitioner and respondent no.3 were issued.

not again challenge is made to the impugned order or transfer only on the ground of adjustment given to the respondent no.3 and therefore, challenge is made to the impugned action.

Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel refutes the aforesaid and points out that both petitioner and respondent no.3 are patwaries and to facilitate the administrative work the collector has issued transfer orders posting the employees from one place to another in the same district.

It is pointed out by Shri Rajendra Tiwari that Annexure P-1 is not an isolated order of transfer of the petitioner, in fact on 15-07-2012, more than 8 Patwaries were transferred .

Two orders passed on the same date i.e.15-07-2012 are Annexures P-1 and P-14 respectively and as the transfer is from one patwari Halka to another Halka in the same district, it is stated by Shri Tiwari that interference into the matter is not called for.

Shri Tiwari points out that in the entire petition except for contending that respondent no.3 is 3 son-in-law of local MLA, no cogent material or evidence is adduced to show as to how and in what manner the MLA concerned has influenced the transfer in question.

Shri Tiwari emphasized that except for making vexatious allegation not supported by any cogent evidence and material, interference cannot be made on the ground of political consideration of malafide.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From the records it is clear that earlier also when the petitioner was transferred he sought for interference into the matter .

Initially this court granted stay but subsequently the petition was disposed of granting liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order and the respondents have taken action afresh in the matter .

The only ground for challenging the transfer is that the respondent no.3 is son-in-law of local MLA and therefore, the transfer is made on political consideration due to involvement of political personality.

Neither the political personality who is said to have influenced the administrative action impugned is impleaded as a party not any material or evidence available on record to show as to how and on what manner the political influence was exercised.

If the entire writ 4 petition is scrutinized and if the documents available on record is analyzed, it would be seen that only a vague allegation is made with regard to the respondent no.3 being son-in-law of local MLA and local MLA having influenced the transfer.

Merely because respondent no.3 is son-in-law of local MLA an assumption cannot be drawn that the transfer is on political consideration.

The petitioner should have shown specific instances as to how and on what manner the political consideration has influenced the transfer.

Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has rightly pointed out that except for making vague allegation, no cogent evidence and material is adduced to show that the political interference is made not there is any material in support of the aforesaid contention.

That apart local MLA against whom the use of political interference is alleged is not made a party.

Under these circumstances, it is not a case where interference can be made by this court.

Accordingly finding no grounds to interfere into the matter, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the departmental remedy available.

5 With the aforesaid liberty the petition stands dismissed.

C.C.as per rules.

(RAJENDRA MENON) hsp JUDGE