Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HASNAIN KHAN versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Hasnain Khan v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 9521 of 2004 [2004] RD-AH 130 (10 March 2004)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                                                                                                                              Court no.21

Civil Misc.Writ Petition No. 9521 of 2004

Hasnain Khan               Versus                             State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned transfer order dated 28.2.2004 ( Annexure-1A to the writ petition) passed by respondent no.3 whereby he was transferred from Pilibhit to Vigilance Department Lucknow.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that after denotification of the Chunav Achar Sanhita no order of transfer can be passed, hence the orders dated 20.2.2004 and 28.2.2004 are liable to be quashed. He further submits that due to malafide intention of respondent no.4 the petitioner was transferred vide order dated 28.2.2004 passed by respondent no.3 from Civil Police to Vigilance Department.

The Standing counsel submits that the Election Commission has imposed a total ban on the transfer of officials connected with the conduct of elections following the enforcement of the model code of conduct with the announcement of poll  schedule. The ban on transfers covers those cases in which transfer order has not been implemented till the imposition of model code of conduct. The Commission has further directed that the State Government should refrain from making transfers of senior officers who have a role in the management of elections in the State.

The petitioner is not connected with the management of elections and is not the status of Chief Electoral Officer and additional, Joint and Deputy CEOs, Divisional Commissioners, District Election Officers, ROs, AROs and Revenue Officers, Officers of the Police Department like range IGs and DIGs, SSPs and SPs, Sub Divisional level Police  Officers like DSPs and other Police officers who are deputed to the Commission under Section 28A of the representation of the People Act, 1951.

It is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner that the services of the petitioner are transferable. The transfer is an exigency of service. No malafide could be shown by the counsel for the petitioner in the impugned order.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.

Dated 10.3.2004

CPP/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.