Case Law Details
Ganesh Dutt Thakur Vs State of H.P. & Ors. (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that transfer order for transfer of Joint Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise from the office of Parwanoo to Shimla justified as allegations of malafide intentions not established with material evidences.
Facts- Petitioner is Joint Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise, Government of Himachal Pradesh. Vide notification dated 29.04.2023, petitioner has been transferred from the office of Joint Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise (SEZ) Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. to Shimla as Joint Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise (Head Quarter). Aggrieved against the aforesaid notification dated 29th April, 2023, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition
Conclusion- Held that I have not found the requisite pleading and proof which can establish the allegations of malafide. Firstly, there is no personal allegations against any functionary of the government and none of such functionary has been made party by name. Consequently, the averments made in the petition are more in the nature of assumptions and presumptions rather having any substantial and direct allegations. There is no material on record to infer that there is any motive of the government in transferring the petitioner from Parwanoo to Shimla. Mere fact that the official respondents have passed orders four times to transfer petitioner within a span of last seven years is not sufficient to infer any motive of the employer in doing so, much less a motive which can be termed as oblique or ulterior. Even the transfer policy adopted by the State Government does not reserve any privilege of being not transferred before a minimum period of time for Class I, Gazetted officer(s).
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Petitioner is Joint Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise , Government of Himachal Pradesh. Vide notification dated 29.04.2023, petitioner has been transferred from the office of Joint Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise (SEZ) Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. to Shimla as Joint Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise (Head Quarter). Aggrieved against the aforesaid notification dated 29th April, 2023, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition and has prayed for following substantive reliefs:-
“A. That the impugned transfer order vide Notification No. EXN-B(6)-2/2022 dated 29th of April, 2023 Vide Annexure P/1, may kindly be quashed and set aside.
B That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petitioner to continue at O/o Joint Commissioner, HP State Excise and Taxation SEZ Parwanoo District Solan, Himachal Pradesh till completion/finalization of Work of auction and sale of the remaining assets of M/s Indian Technomac Private Limited, which is likely to be completed by April, 2024 if no hindrance is created from any quarter in the process.”
2. Petitioner has alleged the impugned transfer notification to be arbitrary, unconstitutional, result of nepotism and against the transfer policy dopted by the Stated Government. As per the petitioner, the impugned notification is actuated with malafide intention and oblique motive. It is further alleged that there is neither any administrative exigency nor the public interest in transferring the petitioner from Parwanoo to Shimla and the only purpose of such exercise is to accommodate respondent No.3 in his home district.
3. The case as built by the petitioner is that in January, 2014, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner and was posted at Economic Intelligence Unit, Shimla. Petitioner, during his aforesaid posting, in the month of June, 2014 detected cases of huge tax evasion amounting to Rs.2100 crores by an industrial unit M/s Indian Technomac Pvt. Ltd., Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. Petitioner remained on study leave for one year from July, 2015 to June, 2016. He again joined at Economic Intelligence Unit, Shimla. Petitioner claims that while he was waiting posting orders, recommendation was made by the Minister Incharge to post the petitioner as AETC Sirmour at Nahan, keeping in view the facts firstly, that the petitioner had detected/investigated the case of revenue evasion against M/s Indian Technomac Pvt. Ltd. Company, secondly the petitioner being well conversant with the company’s profile and lastly, in the interest of revenue. The recommendation so made was accepted by the competent authority i.e. the Chief Minister of the State and the petitioner was accordingly posted as AETC, Sirmour at Nahan. Petitioner has also placed reliance on a communication addressed by the Superintendent of Police (Crime) to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner seeking assistance of petitioner in the investigation of FIR No. 9 of 2016 registered at Police Station CID Bharari, Shimla against the management of M/s Indian Technomac Pvt. Ltd. Company.
4. The petitioner was ordered to be transferred on 10.10.2017 from Nahan to Shimla. Petitioner assailed his transfer order before the then Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, however, in the meanwhile his transfer order was cancelled and petitioner was allowed to continue as AETC Sirmaur at Nahan.
5. Company Petition No. 13 of 2014 in respect of winding up proceedings against M/s Indian Technomac Pvt. Ltd. Company are pending before the learned Company Judge of this Court. On 8.8.2019 an order was passed in Company Petition No. 13 of 2014 approving the sale notice in respect of assets of M/s Indian Technomac Pvt. Ltd. and petitioner being the Deputy Commissioner State Taxes and Excise was mentioned as authorised officer for conducting the sale in association with the secured creditors and official liquidator.
6. Petitioner further alleges that despite the specific orders passed by the Hon’ble Company Judge, petitioner was once again ordered to be transferred from Nahan to Shimla. Petitioner assailed the order of his transfer by way of CWP no. 2331 of 2019 on the ground that it was not feasible for the petitioner to comply with the directions passed in the Company Petition No. 13 of 2014 while being posted at Shimla. In CWP No. 2331 of 2019, an order came to be passed on 4.12.2019 in following terms:
“We have heard this matter for some time in the light of reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of respondent-State. Petitioner may have completed his tenure as Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise, District Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P, however, in view of order dated 8.8.2019, passed by learned Single Judge in Company Application No.54/15, filed in Company Petition No.13 of 2014, the petitioner being Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise, District Sirmaur, H.P., has been nominated by name as authorized officer for conducting sale in association with the secured creditors and official liquidator of the assets of the company M/s Indian Technomac Pvt. Limited.
We are in agreement with learned counsel, representing the petitioner that conducting the sale of the assets of the company is a laborious task and it is not possible for the petitioner to discharge such responsibility while being on circuit to Nahan, that too, in the absence of the record and also the staff. Therefore, the submissions made by learned Additional Advocate General that he can be spared to conduct the auction proceedings at Nahan on circuit from Shimla, are without any substance. Otherwise also, in view of specific order of this Court, the respondents before resorting to the transfer of the petitioner should have_ bare minimum courtesy to have sought leave of the Court.
It is in this view of the matter; we direct respondent No.1 to remain present in person on the next date to assist the Court in the light of the observations hereinabove. List on 19.12.2019.”
7. On 6.01.2020, petitioner was ordered to be transferred as the authorised officer for conducting the sale in association with the secured creditors and official liquidator of the assets of M/s Indian Technomac Pvt. Ltd. Company with head quarter at Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. In view of this changed circumstances, CWP No. 2331/2019 was disposed of by this Court on 07.01.2020.
8. On 8.12.2020, petitioner was promoted as Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and was posted as DETC, Flying Squad (SEZ), Parwanoo. As per the petitioner, he was posted at Parwanoo for the reason that Paonta Sahib was within the administrative jurisdiction of Flying Squad (SEZ), Parwanoo and it was convenient for the petitioner as also was in the interest of the State for effecting recovery by way of sale of the assets of M/s Indian Technomac Pvt. Ltd. On 18.01.2021, petitioner was one again specifically authorised to continue to hold the charge as authorised officer for the purpose of sale of assets of M/s Indian Technomac Pvt. Ltd. In view of the directions issued by this Court on 04.12.2019 in CWP No. 2331 of 2019.
9. Petitioner was once again ordered to be transferred from Parwanoo to Shimla vide notification dated 02.05.2022. Petitioner moved representation dated 02.05.2022 before respondent No.1. On consideration of the representation of the petitioner, the petitioner was again ordered to be posted at Parwanoo vide notification dated 05.05.2022. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the attempt to transfer him time and again either from District Sirmour or Parwanoo was a concerted effort having oblique motive. The perpetrators having failed to achieve their purpose, hatched a conspiracy and got involved the petitioner in uncalled for departmental and vigilance inquiries on the allegation of extending undue benefits to certain assessee(s).
10. Petitioner had been able to recover an amount of Rs.6,36,23,651/- by selling the assets of M/s Indian Technomac Pvt. Ltd. He was fervently pursuing the matter with respect to the sale of assets of M/s Indian Technomac Pvt. Ltd. But he again has been ordered to be transferred vide impugned notification, which petitioner alleges to be a link in the chain of events evidencing a conspiracy to keep the petitioner away from the affairs of Indian Technomac Pvt. Ltd.
11. Respondents No.1 and 2 have contested the claim of the petitioner. The allegations of any motive to transfer the petitioner from Parwanoo to Shimla have specifically been denied. It is submitted that there was no ulterior/oblique motive to transfer the petitioner, who had completed his normal tenure at Parwanoo. It is further submitted that even CWP No., 2331 of 2019 was dismissed by this Court on 07.01.2020 by holding that no case for interference was made out as the petitioner had completed his normal tenure. In addition, the right of the employer to consider as to where the services of petitioner were required, was upheld. Petitioner has been accused of deliberately suppressing the material fact of dismissal of CWP No. 2331 of 2019. As per the official respondents, the company Court had ordered the petitioner to be the part of team for sale of assets of M/s Indian Technomac Pvt Ltd. only for the reason that the petitioner at the relevant time was posted at Nahan within whose jurisdiction the sale was to be effected. Since his promotion as Joint Commissioner State Taxes and Excise in December, 2020, the petitioner had remained posted at Parwanoo and, therefore, there was nothing unusual in his transfer to Shimla after a long span of about years. It is further submitted that departmental and vigilance inquiries are pending against the petitioner with allegations of granting certain undue exemptions to assessee(s) while being posted at Parwanoo. The official respondents have further alleged that on 18.04.2023, the Deputy Commissioner Taxes and Excise, District Sirmour at Nahan had intimated that the Security Staff posted in the campus of M/s Indian Technomac Limited had no information about the machinery/equipment being auctioned and on such premise a request was made by such officer to depute responsible government official to verify the outgoing consignments etc. It is alleged that when the petitioner was asked to answer the discrepancy, he did not reply at all. Respondents No.1 and 2 have further pleaded that an application has already been filed in the Company Petition No. 13 of 2014 seeking modification of order dated 08.08.2019 to the extent that either of the officers i.e. Shri Himanshu Panwar, Deputy Commissioner, Nahan at Distt. Sirmour or Shri Ujjal Singh Rana, Joint Commissioner (SEZ), Parwanoo, be mentioned as authorised officer for conducting the further sale in association with the secured Creditors and Official Liquidator of the assets of M/s Technomac Pvt. Ltd. Company. The suppression of this material fact has also been alleged against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no vested the right to remain at one place of posting and while being posted at Shimla the petitioner can still discharge the duties assigned to him as authorised officer for sale of assets of M/s Technomac Pvt Ltd. Company.
12. The petitioner in his rejoinder has denied the allegations of suppression of any fact and has tried to explain the reason for not making any averment with respect to order dated 7.01.2020 passed by the Court in CWP No. 2331 of 2019 by stating that he had placed on record notification dated 06.01.2020, whereby his transfer was cancelled and since order dated 07.01.2020 was passed taking into consideration notification dated 6.01.2020, it was not found necessary to make averment with respect to order dated 07.01.2020 passed in CWP No.2331 of 2019. It has also been submitted that the conduct of sale of assets of the company is a laborious task and it is not possible for anyone to discharge the same in the absence of office, record and staff. As per petitioner, the notification dated 18.01.2021 Annexure P-8 was issued by the competent authority on the basis of order dated 04.12.2019 passed in CWP No. 2331 of 2019, therefore, the said order dated 04.12.2019 was more relevant than the order dated 07.01.2020 passed in CWP No. 2331 of 2019. Rest of the contents of the reply have been denied and those of the petition have been reiterated. The thrust of the petitioner, by way of detailed averments made in rejoinder is to impress upon those other officers of the department, who were assigned the same job, were not able to perform rather had to face criminal investigation in pursuance to FIR registered by the police. As regards allegations with respect to the involvement of the petitioner in departmental as well as vigilance inquiry, it has been submitted that the same is result of manipulation and conspiracy against the petitioner. Petitioner has also tried to explain that the entire effort of official respondents was to accommodate the private respondent No.3. It has also been tried to suggest that the transfer of the petitioner from Parwanoo was for some purpose.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.
14. The grievance of the petitioner revolves around the facts, which according to him, are clearly suggestive of a evident campaign, to keep petitioner away from the affairs related with sale of assets of Indian Technomac Limited. He has quoted following examples of his transfer orders in support of his contention:
(i) The petitioner was ordered to be transferred on 10.10.2017 from Nahan to Shimla
(ii) 2nd time ordered to be transferred in December, 2019
(iii) 3rd time transferred from Parwanoo to Shimla in May 2022.
(iv) Lastly impugned notification dated 29.04.2023, Annexure P-1, whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be transferred from Parwanoo to headquarters at Shimla.
15. Petitioner is Class-I Gazetted Officer. As a matter of fact, petitioner has remained posted at Parwanoo since December, 2020. There is no gainsaying that the transfer is an incidence of service. The employer has unfettered power to effect transfer save and except for extraneous reasons. A government servant holding a transferable post, neither holds a fundamental nor legal right to remain posted at one place or the other.
16. In S. Nausad Rahaman and others vs. Union of India and others, (2022) 12 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:
“24. While analyzing the rival submissions, certain basic precepts of service jurisprudence must be borne in mind.
25. First and foremost, transfer in an All-India Service is an incident of service. Whether, and if so where, an employee should be posted are matters which are governed by the exigencies of service. An employee has no fundamental right or, for that matter, a vested right to claim a transfer or posting of their choice.
26. Second, executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfers and postings do not confer an indefeasible right to claim a transfer or posting.
Individual convenience of persons who are employed in the service is subject to the overarching needs of the administration.”
17. The scope of judicial review of transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution is also very limited. In Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs. State of U.P. & Others, (2008)1 SCC 180, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: –
“7. The scope of judicial review of transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been settled by the Supreme Court in Rajendra Rao vs. Union of India (1993) 1 SCC 148; (AIR 1939 SC 1236), National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagwan (2001) 8 SCC 574; (AIR 2001 SC 3309), State Bank of India vs. Anjan Sanyal (2001) 5 SCC 508; (AIR 2001SC 1748). Following the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court in Vijay Pal Singh vs. State of U.P.(1997) 3 ESC 1668; (1998) All LJ 70) and Onkarnath Tiwari vs. The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, U.P. Lucknow (1997) 3 ESC 1866; (1998 All LJ 245), has held that the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions is that an order of transfer is a part of the service conditions of an employee which should not be interfered with ordinarily by a Court of law in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 unless the Court finds that either the order is mala fide or that the service rules prohibit such transfer, or that the authorities who issued the orders, were not competent to pass the orders.”
18. In the case in hand, the petitioner has made an attempt to show that the reasons for his transfer from Parwanoo to Shimla are not bonafide. Reliance has been placed on the order passed by the Company Court in Co. Pet. No. 13 of 2014, whereby the petitioner was authorised to conduct the sale of assets of wound-up company named M/s Indian Technomac Pvt. Ltd. It has also been propagated that the petitioner had detected the invasion of huge amount of taxes by M/s Indian Technomac Pvt Ltd. Company and it was for such reason that he was repeatedly posted at Nahan, Paonta Sahib or Parwanoo. According to the petitioner, the government found the petitioner to be the most suitable person for the job of conducting the sale of assets of M/s Indian Technomac Pvt. Ltd. Company and for such reason he had been posted at such places which had jurisdiction over the district of Sirmour and more particularly area of Paonta Sahib where the assets of M/s Indian Technomac Pvt. Ltd. were available. Petitioner has also tried to impress upon that none of the other officers of the department were able to perform and for such reason it was in the public interest and administrative exigency that he was required to be posted at Parwanoo, which has jurisdiction over Paonta Sahib also. In other words, the case of the petitioner is that the official respondents have some hidden purpose to see that the petitioner does not remain involved in the matter of M/s Indian Technomac Pvt. Ltd. Company.
19. It is more than settled that the allegations of malafide have to be specifically pleaded and then have to be proved by cogent material.
20. In Union of India & Others vs. Ashok Kumar and others, (2005)8 SCC 760, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
21. Doubtless, he who seeks to invalidate or nullify any act or order must establish the charge of bad faith, an abuse or a misuse by the authority of its powers. While the indirect motive or purpose, or bad faith or personal ill-will is not to be held established except on clear proof thereof, it is obviously difficult to establish the state of a man’s mind, for that is what the employee has to establish in this case, though this may sometimes be done. The difficulty is not lessened when one has to establish that a person apparently acting on the legitimate exercise of power has, in fact, been acting malafide in the sense of pursuing an illegitimate aim. It is not the law that mala fide in the sense of improper motive should be established only by direct evidence. But it must be discernible from the order impugned or must be shown from the established surrounding factors which preceded the order.
If bad faith would vitiate the order, the same can, in our opinion, be deduced as a reasonable and inescapable inference from proved facts. (See S. Pratap Singh v. The State of Punjab, [1964] 4 SCR 733). It cannot be overlooked that burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demand proof of a high order of credibility. As noted by this Court in R.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., AIR (1974) SC 555, Courts would be slow to draw dubious inferences from incomplete facts placed before it by a party, particularly when the imputations are grave and they are made against the holder of______________ an office which has a high responsibility in the administration. (See. Indian Rly. Construction Co. Ltd. vs. Ajay Kumar, (2003)4 SCC 579)”
21. In Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited vs. RDS Projects Limited and others, (2013)1 SCC 524, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“25. Even otherwise the findings recorded by the High Court on the question of mala fides do not appear to us to be factually or legally sustainable. While we do not consider it necessary to delve deep into this aspect of the controversy, we may point out that allegations of mala fides are more easily made than proved. The law casts a heavy burden on the person alleging mala fides to prove the same on the basis of facts that are either admitted or satisfactorily established and/or logical inferences deducible from the same. This is particularly so when the petitioner alleges malice in fact in which event it is obligatory for the person making any such allegation to furnish particulars that would prove mala fides on the part of the decision maker. Vague and general allegations unsupported by the requisite particulars do not provide a sound basis for the court to conduct an inquiry into their veracity.
26. The legal position in this regard is fairly well-settled by a long line of decisions of this Court.
26.1 We may briefly refer to only some of them. In State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 222, this Court summed up the law on the subject in the following words:
“50. Mala fides means want of good faith, personal bias, grudge, oblique or improper motive or ulterior purpose. The administrative action must be said to be done in good faith, if it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not. An act done honestly is deemed to have been done in good faith. An administrative authority must, therefore, act in a bona fide manner and should never act for an improper motive or ulterior purposes or contrary to the requirements of the statute, or the basis of the circumstances contemplated by law, or improperly exercised discretion to achieve some ulterior purpose. The determination of a plea of mala fide involves two questions, namely (i) whether there is a personal bias or an oblique motive, and (ii) whether the administrative action is contrary to the objects, requirements and conditions of a valid exercise of administrative power.
51. The action taken must, therefore, be proved to have been made mala fide for such considerations. Mere assertion or a vague or bald statement is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated either by admitted or proved facts and circumstances obtainable in a given case. If it is established that the action has been taken mala fide for any such considerations or by fraud on power or colourable exercise of power, it cannot be allowed to stand.” (emphasis supplied)
26.2 We may also refer to the decision of this Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., Haldia and Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 764 where the Court declared that allegations of mala fides need proof of high degree and that an administrative action is presumed to be bona fide unless the contrary is satisfactorily established. The Court observed:
56. … … … It is well settled that the burden of proving mala fide is on the person making the allegations and the burden is “very heavy”. (vide E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N. (1974) 4 SCC 3) There is every presumption in favour of the administration that the power has been exercised bona fide and in good faith. It is to be remembered that the allegations of mala fide are often more easily made than made out and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high degree of credibility. As Krishna Iyer, J. stated in Gulam Mustafa v. State of Maharashtra (1976) 1 SCC 800 (SCC p. 802, para 2): “It (mala fide) is the last refuge of a losing litigant.”
27. There is yet another aspect which cannot be ignored. As and when allegations of mala fides are made, the persons against whom the same are levelled need to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings to enable them to answer the charge. In the absence of the person concerned as a party in his/her individual capacity it will neither be fair nor proper to record a finding that malice in fact had vitiated the action taken by the authority concerned. It is important to remember that a judicial pronouncement declaring an action to be mala fide is a serious indictment of the person concerned that can lead to adverse civil consequences against him. Courts have, therefore, to be slow in drawing conclusions when it comes to holding allegations of mala fides to be proved and only in cases where based on the material placed before the Court or facts that are admitted leading to inevitable inferences supporting the charge of mala fides that the Court should record a finding in the process ensuring that while it does so, it also hears the person who was likely to be affected by such a finding.”
22. Analysing the facts of the case at the touchstone of above noticed exposition of law, I have not found the requisite pleading and proof which can establish the allegations of malafide. Firstly, there is no personal allegations against any functionary of the government and none of such functionary has been made party by name. Consequently, the averments made in the petition are more in the nature of assumptions and presumptions rather having any substantial and direct allegations. There is no material on record to infer that there is any motive of the government in transferring the petitioner from Parwanoo to Shimla. Mere fact that the official respondents have passed orders four times to transfer petitioner within a span of last seven years is not sufficient to infer any motive of the employer in doing so, much less a motive which can be termed as oblique or ulterior. Even the transfer policy adopted by the State Government does not reserve any privilege of being not transferred before a minimum period of time for Class I, Gazetted officer(s). Rather, the flipside of the facts as have merged can be the unwillingness of the petitioner himself to be get detached from the affairs of Indian Technomac Limited.
23. Except for self-proclaimed necessity of petitioner to look after the affairs of sale of assets of M/s Indian Technomac Pvt. Ltd., there is no cogent material to warrant such assumption. As per the petitioner himself, the Indian Technomac Pvt. Ltd. Company was in default of about Rs.2100 crores by way of evasion of taxes. Petitioner has been at the helm of affairs for selling the assets of M/s Indian Technomac Pvt. Ltd. Company with a purpose to effect recovery of the State dues for the last about six years. The sale of assets worth about Rs. six crores is stated to have been effected till date, which in comparison to the entire amount of default if minuscule. Thus, to say that the petitioner has been able to achieve exceptional will be a fallacy. By quoting examples of few officers who allegedly were not able to achieve, petitioner cannot paint the entire rank with the same stroke of brush. Admittedly, petitioner has remained in-charge of the process of sale of assets of M/s Indian Technomac Pvt. Ltd. Company for the last many years and none other had got a chance to prove his worth by achieving more than the petitioner. Even otherwise, the decision of Administrative Authority once taken to depute petitioner for a specific job will not create estoppel against such authorities and will not deter them from reviewing or changing the same subsequently.
24. The fact that the Hon’ble Company Court had authorised the petitioner to conduct the sale of assets of M/s Indian Technomac Pvt. Ltd. Company is also not sufficient to infer that the petitioner was considered to be the only fit person and inevitable for the job. Admittedly, the petitioner was posted as AETC, Sirmour at Nahan at the time when the order was passed by the Company Court and in absence of any material against the petitioner, he would be the most obvious choice for the purpose.
25. The petitioner has been discharging the duties assigned to him by Hon’ble Company Court for the last about three years, while having his place of posting at Parwanoo. It is noticeable when the petitioner can discharge his duties as assigned to him by the Company Court while sitting at Parwanoo, why cannot he achieve from Shimla. In case of any complaint with respect to lack of facilities, he can always make his request to the authorities and the Company Court as well and in such event, it will be for Hon’ble Company Court to pass appropriate orders in the best interest of adjudication of the lis before it. As per the stand of official respondents they have already moved the Hon’ble Company Court for modification of orders.
26. In light of above discussion, petitioner has not been able to make out a case for himself and in result the petition is dismissed. No order as to the costs. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
Notes
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Author Bio
