JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P11 order passed by the second respondent under the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966. The grievance highlighted by the petitioner is that by virtue of the directions contained in Exts.P7 and P8, fourth respondent and the petitioner were heard and the application submitted by the fourth respondent to effect mutation of the property was declined, as per Ext.P10 order. However, later without hearing the petitioner mutation was effected in favour of the fourth respondent. Thus seeks to quash Ext.P11 basically on the ground of arbitrariness and illegality. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Government Pleader. Even though notice is served on the fourth respondent there is no appearance.

3. A statement is filed by the second respondent refuting the allegations, claims and demands raised by the petitioner. I am not going into the details in view of the nature of order I propose to pass.

4. It is an admitted fact that pursuant to the application submitted by the fourth respondent, Ext.P7 direction was issued by this Court directing the second respondent to consider the a