RAM KRISHNA Vs. U P JAL NIGAM LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition Is directed against the order of transfer dated 29.6.1998. Prior to this order of transfer, the petitioner was transferred from Bareilly to Pillbhlt by order dated 14.5.1998. Aggrieved by the transfer order dated 14.5.1998, the petitioner had preferred Writ Petition No. 860 (S/B) of 1998 on 6.6.1998. Thereafter by . order dated 9.6.1998. transfer order of the petitioner to Pilibhit was cancelled. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that since the impugned order of transfer has been withdrawn, therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed as Infructuous. But, the petitioner was shocked to receive the impugned order dated 29.6.1998 transferring him this time from Bareilly to Ghazipur.

(2.) The law with regard to transfer has developed in the recent past to the extent that the High Court can only interfere in the orders of transfer if either there is violation of law or where the transfer order has been passed on the ground of mala fides. In the present case, although, there is no allegation of violation of any law, however, the petitioner has made several allegations with regard to mala fides in facts.

(3.) We are of the considered opinion that mala fides can be of two types, viz., mala fides in facts and mala fides in law. The petitioner has specifically alleged mala fides in paragraphs 10 to 13 of the writ petition.