( 1 ) THE petitioner (original plaintiff) sought an interim junction against his transfer from Junagadh to Bharuch. He is junior Employment Officer a Class 111 employee in the employment of State Government- The learned Trial Judge rejected the application. He carried the matter in appeal- There the learned District Judge held that the appeal and the suit were not maintainable on the ground that the plaintiff had not fulfilled the conditions under sec 80 C. P. C. for filing a suit without statutory notice.

( 2 ) IT must be noted that alongwith the plaint the petitioner- plaintiff had given an application Ex. 2 to the trial Court and obtained permission for instituting the suit without notice. That had become necessary because there was urgent and immediate need to obtain interim relief against the order of transfer. Thus the suit was competently instituted under sec. 80 (2 ). However the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that when the trial Court refused interim relief it meant that there was no urgency and no need for immediate relief and therefore a suit was held not maintainable. This reasoning by the learned District Judge is clearly erroneous The only consideration at the time of granting leave without serving statutory notice under sec. 80 is whether the suit is for obtaining urgent and immediate relief against the Government- It is the urgency or immediate nature of the relief which would be relevant for deciding whether leave should be granted or not and not whether the plaintiff has good case for obtaining immediate and urgent relief by way of it rim order. Merely because the interim relief is refused on merits it cannot be said that there was no urgent or immediate need for interim relief in the suit. When the leave is granted there is no question of the Court reviewing the grant of leave or returning the plaint. The Court having been once satisfied about the urgency the requirement of statutory notice fades into total insignificance and the suit has to be tried as any other suit and merely because the interim relief is refused the leave granted and the suit instituted will not become incompetent. In the case of Bhalchandra N. Acharya v. State of Gujarat reported in 1981 G. L. H. 119 Mr. Justice B. K. Mehta has taken the same view.

( 3 ) THEREFORE the order of the learned District Judge holding that the suit and the appeal were not competent and directing the trial Court to deal with the suit under proviso to sub-sec. (2) to sec. 80 is

( 4 ) THE appeal of the petitioner-plaintiff was dismissed only on such technical ground. The learned Counsel for the petitioner therefore argued that the appeal should be remanded back to the District Court for disposal according to law. Even though the appeal is dismissed on that ground and not on merits I do not consider it proper to prolong this interim litigation further in fact of this case 1 therefore heard the learned Counsels on merits of the injunction application Ex. 8. In the injunction application Ex. 8 in para 2 the plaintiff has stated that he has been transferred to Junagadh from Bhesan only two months prior to the impugned transfer. In para 3 the petitioner has made allegations of mala fide (to which I will refer to later) and in para 4 he has referred to his personal hardship due to transfer in the mid term. No other point was raised as regards the transfer within two months and transfer in the mid term the agreement has lost the value by lapse of time

( 5 ) AS regards the ground of mala fide the petitioner has made utterly vague allegation against the defendant No. 3-Employment Officer (who is not made a party in this revision application) and contended that because of certain representations by defendant No. 3 Deputy Director Mr. D. P. Vora had visited Junagadh office on 19-10-82 and it is alleged by the plaintiff that this Deputy Director had threatened the plaintiff in the office in the presence of other employees that the plaintiff would