S.Sheik Abdullah, v. The General Manager

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.10.2015

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD) No.18940 of 2015 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015 S.Sheik Abdullah ... Petitioner -vs1.The General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Dindigul Division, Dindigul District 2.Manickavasagam General Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Dindigul Division, Dindigul District 3.The Branch Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Dindigul Branch-I Dindigul Division, Dindigul District 4.Palamalai Branch Manager Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Dindigul Branch-I Dindigul Division, Dindigul District 5.The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Bye-Pass Road, Madurai 6.Veerapandi Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Bye-Pass Road, Madurai ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Ref.No.ADmn.P2:880, dated 08.10.2015 and relieving order, dated 09.10.2015 and to quash the same.

For Petitioner :

Mr.J.Ashok For Respondents :

Mr.A.Jeyaram Standing Counsel

O R D E R

Mr.A.Jeyaram, learned Standing Counsel, takes notice for the respondents. With the consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of transfer, dated 08.10.2015, passed by the first respondent, on the ground that the order of transfer is enriched by mala fide intention as he has repeatedly given representations indicating certain irregularities taken place in the respondent Corporation.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing the impugned order, would submit that when the petitioner brought the irregularities taken place in the respondent Corporation to the notice of the higher authorities, the first respondent even without taking steps to set right the affairs of the Transport Corporation, infuriating with the conduct of the petitioner, passed the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order of transfer is liable to set aside.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that the transfer of the petitioner from Dindigul Region-I to Dindigul RegionII is on administrative grounds and the distance between the two stations is less than 60 Kms. Therefore, the petitioner cannot question the same. Further, he would submit that the petitioner repeatedly made complaints to the respondent Corporation making allegations against the private transport carriers instead of making complaints to the competent authorities to take action against them.

5. Be that as it may, when the petitioner has been transferred from Dindigul Region-I to Dindigul Region-II to work at Manapparai and the distance is less than 60 kms., this Court does not find any merit on the contention of the petitioner that he would be prejudiced due to the impugned order of transfer and therefore this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

6. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To:

1.The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Dindigul Division, Dindigul District.

2. The Branch Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Dindigul Branch-I, Dindigul Division, Dindigul District.

3.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai), Bye-Pass Road, Madurai.

+1cc to M/S.J.Ashok, Advocate in SR.No 61222 +1cc to M/S.A.Jeyaram,Advocate in SR.No.61412 TS/27.10.2015/3P - 6C AMF/SAR -II W.P.(MD) No.18940 of 2015 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2015 15.10.2015