Hon’ble Rajeev Misra, J.—The first informant Km. Aayasha has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 15.6.2016 passed by the respondent No. 2 Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffar Nagar, whereby the investigation of Case Crime No. 102 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/34 IPC, P.S. Meerapur, District Muzaffar Nagar, has been transferred from the local police of District Muzaffar Nagar to C.B.C.I.D., Meerut Region, Meerut. A further prayer has been made to call for the order dated 18.5.2016 passed by the respondent No. 1 the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of U.P., Lucknow, whereby a decision was taken by the State Government to transfer the investigation of the above mentioned crime number to the C.B.C.I.D.

2. We have heard Mr. I.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Ray, learned A.G.A. representing the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.

3. vide order dated 2.2.2017 passed on the writ petition, notices were issued to the respondent No. 5. The Office has submitted a report dated 26.7.2017 stating therein that pursuant to the order dated 2.2.2017, notices were issued to the respondent No. 5 by registered post with acknowledgement due fixing 20.3.2017, as the next date in the present writ petition. However, neither the acknowledgement, nor un-deliverred cover has been received so far. As such, the service of notice upon the respondent No. 5 shall be deemed to be sufficient under the provisions of Explanation II to Rule 12 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules.

4. The present writ petition was taken up for admission on 22.11.2016 and the learned A.G.A. representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 was directed to file a counter-affidavit. Accordingly, a short counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1, whereby the order dated 18.5.2016 passed by the Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, whereby a decision was taken at the Government level to transfer the investigation of the above mentioned case crime number to C.B.C.I.D., the G.O. dated 5.9.1995, the G.O. dated 22.10.2014 regarding transfer of investigation from the local police to the C.B.C.I.D. and the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffar Nagar, dated 30.3.2016, on the basis of which, the decision to transfer the investigation of the above mentioned case crime number to C.B.C.I.D. was taken have been brought on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. I.K. Chaturvedi has submitted before us that the matter relating to the transfer of investigation from the local police to the C.B.C.I.D. is regulated under the provisions of G.O. dated 5.9.1995 as amended vide G.O. dated 22.10.2014. A conjoint reading of the Government Orders dated 5.9.1995 and 22.10.2014 leads to the inescapable conclusion that the transfer can be effected only upon the satisfaction of one or more of the conditions enumerated at Serial Nos. 1, 2 3 and 4 of the Government Order dated 5.9.1995 coupled with the condition as provided, vide G.O. dated 22.10.2014, to the effect that no transfer can be affected without obtaining the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police.

6. On the aforesaid factual basis, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends before us that none of the conditions as provided for in the G.O. dated 5.9.1995 are satisfied in the present case. Furthermore, the report dated 30.3.2016 submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffar Nagar also does not make any recommendation for transfer of the investigation of the above mentioned case crime number from the local police to the C.B.C.I.D., Meerut Region, Meerut. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the recommendation made on the report dated 30.3.2016 is wholly arbitrary. Elaborating his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that once a decision has been taken without considering the material on the record as well as the subordina