ABDUL RAZACK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who is a Member of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'I.T.A.T'}, has approched this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the impugned transfer order being No.F. 46-Ad (AT)/98, dated 22-9-1998, issued by the 11th respondent as illegally passed and ultra vires the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Recruitment Rules, 1963 being without jurisdiction, authority of law and a vindictive, mala fide transfer and a further direction or order particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and to pass such other order as may be deemed fit and proper in the set of circumstances.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Judicial Memberof Income-tax Appellate Tribunal pursuant to an application filed by him on 24-3-1990, which was submitted from Hyderabad and was given posting orders on 10-9-1991 by the first respondent under Section 252(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961, which was received by him at Hyderabad on 12-9-1991. Petitioner, who was functioning as a Member of the I.T.A.T., was transferred from place to place during these years. According to him, he was transferred from Pama to Chennai as per the order, dated 9-10-1996 issued by the third respondent and assumed duties as such in the fore-noon of 22-10-1996.

(3.) While he was at Chennai, he being a senior Member was constantly beingpressurised since April 1998 by the second, third and fourth respondents to grant unconditional and absolute stay in the appeals, involving approximately rupees two hundred crores, of - (1) Sri M. Ramchandran, former Industries Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, (2) Sri S. Dhyaneshwaran, former Chairman of Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals Development Corporation Limited, (3) Sri T.V. Dinakaran, (4) Sri T.V. Sudhakaran, (5) Sri V. Bhaskaran, who are brothers and nephew of Smt.N. Sasikala, a very close associate of Ms. J. Jayalalitha, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu State, presently General Secretary of AIADMK Party, to which the second respondent belongs and which is a coalition partner with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. Petitioner claimed that he resisted the pressures brought on him by the second, third and fourth respondents and declined to oblige them as demanded by them, with the result the third and fourth respondents were angry with the petitioner and were harassing and humiliating him in leave and tour matters and also in allocation of Bench Work. According to the petitioner, he and the tenth respondent had been constantly put on 'D' Bench since April, 1998, which is constituted to deal petty and small matters.