M AJEM JAMIR Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 27.8.96 passed in Civil Rule No. 16(K)/96. Mr. D.K. Misra, iearned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Government Advocate, appearing lor the State-respondents have nude a prayer that the hearing of the appeal itself may he done at the admission stage and it is in these circumstances that wo are disposing of the present appeal after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. It may ho noted rhat notice by Registered A/D was sent to respondent No.3 on 30.10.96. Therefore, service on respondent-3 will he presumed to be sufficient under the law. Today neither the respondent-3 is present nor any one has appeared on his behalf..

(2.) In the Civil Rule which hud been filed by the respondent No. 3/writ petitioner, a challenge was made to the transfer order dated 14.2.96 posting the appellant/respondent No. 3 as the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes. Mobile Squad at Dimapur in supersession of earlier order dated 5.12.95. Mr. D.K. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ respondent has urged that according to law laid down by the Apex Court ihe transfer order being an administrative order it bus not to contain the reasons and the impugned judgment quashing the impugned transfer order by the learned single Judge on that ground suffers from an error of law which requires interference in this appeal, Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Government Advocate, appearing for Ihe State of Nagaland has also contended that the transfer order has not to contain the reasons in view of the decision of the Apex Court and as it is an administrative order passed on the ground of administrative exigencies and public interest,

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parlies, we are of the opinion that the Apex Court in a number of decisions has laid down that Ehe transfer orders are amenable to (he jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution when it has either been passed malafide or in contravention with any statutory provisions. In the present case, it has not been shown that the transfer order has either been passed malafide nor in contravention with any statutory rules. As far as containing of reason is concerned, we are of the opinion that the transfer order being an administrative order, the same has not to contain reasons. However, it is being made clear that if a challenge is made before the Court in respect of transfer order on the ground of transfer order being either malafide or in contravention with any statutory rules, the Court will examine the cases of the parties and in case it arrives at a finding that the transfer order is either malafide or is in contravention with any statutory rules, the same can be quashed.