Allahabad High Court
Har Pal Singh vs State Of U.P. & Another on 4 February, 2010
Author: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5772 of 2010 Petitioner :- Har Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- Tej Pal,Sukhendu Pal Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.
The challenge is to the transfer order dated 12.12.2009 on four grounds.
The first ground is that the said order does not have the approval of Police Establishment Board as directed by the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh Vs. State reported in 2006(8) SCC 1. Secondly the petitioner has been transferred on erroneous considerations inasmuch the petitioner is resident of Hamirpur and he had been posted at Kanpur Nagar by the same Inspector General of Police knowing the fact that he is a resident of Hamirpur. Thirdly, it is contended that the daughter of the petitioner is a student of class 11 and fourthly, that the wife of the petitioner is undergoing medical treatment.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel the State Govt has come up with a direction dated 12.8.2009 whereby the Inspector General of Police has been authorised to make inter zonal transfer. The said order dated 12.8.2009 has not challenged before this Court. In view of this it cannot be said that the order dated 12.12.2009 is patently without jurisdiction.
The second contention of the petitioner is with regard to the fact that the petitioner is a resident of district Hamirpur and therefore his placement at Kanpur Nagar was done knowing the said fact, does not create a ban for an order of transfer. There is no denial of the aforesaid fact. In view of this it cannot be entertained in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The third and fourth grounds are for sympathetic consideration. It is well known that sympathies cannot be a substitute for law. It is open to the petitioner to approach the respondents for such consideration. No mandamus is required to be issued by this Court.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.2.2010 mna