S V SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is now well settled that the Writ Court would not normally interfere with the orders of transfer, since the High Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot assume the role of an administrative supervisor in, regard to the affairs of a concerned organisation. But this cannot have an universal application and it depends upon, the facts and circumstances of each case. The managerial function to transfer cannot and ought not to be regarded as a prerogative, without any just cause. If the transfer order is tainted with malice or is violative of well-accepted norms or it is penal in nature, the writ Court shall be within its jurisdiction to enquire into the charge of malice and if found substantiated can set right the wrong and to set right of wrong is a plain exercise of judicial powers and there ought not to be any hesitation in. that regard.

(2.) The Madras High Court in the case of C. Ramanathan vs. Acting Zonal Manager, Food Corporation of India, Madras 8 Ors. reported in 1980 1 L.L.J. page 1 observed

(3.) The High Court, therefore, in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution is required to investigate as to whether the order of transfer is tainted with malice or, motive or can be termed to be an order for administrative exigencies. It is, therefore, to be seen as to whether the order of transfer cap, be termed to be an act contrary to law in the facts of the ease under consideration.