SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Mad) 410

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MARKANDEY KATJU & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN
K.Selva Rajan - Appellant
Versus
The Managing Director & Others - Respondents
W.A. No. 481 of 2005
Decided On : 07 March 2005

Advocates Appeared: For The Appellant:A.Amal Raj, Advocate. For The Respondents:R1, R.Kannan, Advocate.

Transfer is an exigency of service and can only be interfered with in case of violation of statutory rule or mala fides.

Headnote:

Transfer - Writ Appeal - The court held that transfer is an exigency of service and cannot be interfered with unless there is a violation of a statutory rule or mala fides. No violation of any statutory rule was shown, and the plea of mala fides could not be considered as no one was impleaded by name as a respondent.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant challenged his transfer order in a writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned single Judge.

Finding of the Court:

The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed the writ appeal, stating that transfer is an exigency of service and cannot be interfered with except in cases of violation of statutory rule or mala fides.

Issues: Challenge of transfer order in writ petition

Ratio Decidendi: Transfer is an exigency of service and can only be interfered with in case of violation of statutory rule or mala fides.

Final Decision: The writ appeal and the related petition were dismissed by the court.

Judgment :-

Markandey Katju, CJ.

This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 18.2.2005. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in this appeal.

2. The appellant has challenged his transfer order in the writ petition, but the writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge. It is well settled that transfer is an exigency of service and hence this Court cannot interfere except if there is violation of some statutory rule or mala fides. No violation of any statutory rule has been shown to us. As regards the plea of mala fides, no one has been impleaded by name as a respondent. Hence the plea of mala fides cannot be considered. The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Consequently WAMP No.868 of 2005 is also dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top