( 1 ) THE petitioner who is working as a Helper at Una office of the respondent-Electricity Board is transferred from Una by an order dt. 27-11-90 by the Board. The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 165 of 1990 in the court of learned Civil Judge (JD) Una and prayed for injunction against his transfer without producing a copy of his transfer order. The learned Civil Judge issued notice and granted ex parte order of status quo on 19 Thereafter the learned Civil Judge after hearing both the sides dismissed the application Exhibit-5 for interim injunction by his order dated 26-6-91 and vacated the order of status quo granted earlier. Against the said order passed by the learned Civil Judge the petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Appeal No. 125/91 before the learned Extra Assistant Judge Junagadh. The learned Assistant Judge continued the order of status quo till the appeal came to be dismissed by him on 20-7-91.

( 2 ) I am told by Mr. Rana L. A. for the petitioner that thereafter on an application a statement was made by respondent No. 3 before the learned Assistant Judge on 20-7-91 stating that they will not implement the impugned order of transfer for some time because of that even today the order of transfer is not implemented.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has challenged the above orders passed by the courts below before this Court in this C. R. A.

( 4 ) MR. Rana L. A. for the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the courts be- low on the ground that the impugned order of transfer came to be passed at the instance of local M. L. A. Shri Punjabhai B. Vansh and submitted that the Courts below have committed an error in not granting injunction against the impugned order of transfer. In support of his submission Mr. Rana relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar reported in Labour and Industrial Cases 1991 (SC) 360. Mr. Rana also took me through a letter dt. 3-1-91 addressed by Shri Vansh to the Minister of State for Energy which is annexed at Annexure- 1 to this application in support of his submission. The above submission of Mr. Rana is required to be rejected on more than one grounds. FIRSTLY because the petitioner-plaintiff has not joined the M. L. A. Shri Vansh as a party defendant in his suit. Therefore in absence of said M. L. A. in the suit proceedings no such al- legation of mala fides can be considered by the court. Secondly in the application for injunction Exh. 5 no such allegation is at all made against that M. L. A. but only general and vague allegation is made that because of change in Govern- ment due to political pressure the respondent-Board is likely to transfer the plaintiff-petitioner. Therefore notice of such vague allegation of mala fides cannot be taken into considera- tion by any Court. Thirdly the impugned order of transfer was already passed much before the filing of the suit i. e. on 27-11-90 and the suit was filed on 19 The letter at Annexure-1 to this peti- tion was addressed by the said M. L. A. to the Minister of State for Energy on 3-1-91 i. e. after the filing of the suit and passing of the impugned order of transfer. Fourthly even if such a letter was addressed by the M. L. A. to the Minister prior to the order of transfer there would be nothing wrong in writing such letter. After all what is written in the letter ? By that letter the M. L. A. brought to the notice of the Minsiter of State for Energy that serious complaints have been made against the petitioner. It is also stated in the said letter that due to political backing he is not attending to his duties and being a public servant he cannot do any political work. It is further stated in the said letter that the plaintiff-petitioner was taking advantage of his position as President of Youth Congress (I) at Una. Therefore he (M. L. A.) has requested the Minister to inquire into the matter and take steps against the petitioner about the complaints made against him. Merely