Satish Chandra, C.J.

1. The petitioners are aggrieved by an order of transfer of their assessment circle from Hapur to Kanpur under Section 127(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The petitioners' grievance is that no reasoned order was passed or communicated to the petitioners. From the counter-affidavit it appears that notices to all the assessees in the group of Rameshwar Dass Mittal were served inviting them to show cause why all their cases be not transferred to Kanpur Circle. The notices were duly served. The petitioners had notice of the date of hearing, namely, 1st August, 1975. On that date nobody appeared. On July 30, 1975, an application was received by post praying for an adjournment. This application was refused and the order of transfer was passed on the ground t "a lot of enquiries must be made before assessments are completed. Delay will hamper proper progress in our work. Transfer orders may issue". In the counter-affidavit it has been clarified that it was expedient to combine these cases. Hapur falls within the Central Circle of Meerut, which is under the administrative charge of the CIT, Delhi. Delhi people were overburdened and were not in a position to receive a