@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
M.M. Sundresh, J.@mdashAs the petitioner in both the above writ petitions is one and the same, they have been taken up together and disposed of by a common order.
2. W.P.No. 12175 of 2014 has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.2.2014 by which he has sought for a specified route with the grievance that he has been asked to ply the vehicle in different routes.
3. W.P.No. 22601 of 2014 has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order of transfer dated 8.8.2014 on the ground that it has been passed in view of the filing of the earlier writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has sought for a permanent route. Though his junior has been given a specified route, the petitioner was made to ply the bus in different route. As he has given a representation in this regard, he was transferred. Therefore, the said order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. As the petitioner was transferred and thereafter made to ply the bus in different routes, the order dated 8.8.2014 is liable to be set aside.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents in both the cases submitted that while there is no difficulty for the second respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 28.2.2014, there is no alleged mala fides in passing the impugned order dated 8.8.2014 which has been passed on administrative reasons. The petitioner has been merely transferred from Palladam Branch Circle to Tiruppur Circle Branch-1 on administrative reasons and therefore, no interference is required.
6. In so far as W.P.No. 12175 of 2014 is concerned, considering the limited scope of the relief sought for by the petitioner, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation dated 28.2.2014, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
7. In so far as W.P.No. 22601 of 2014 is concerned, a perusal of the order impugned would show that it has been passed only on administrative reasons. Admittedly, the said order, being an order of transfer, is incidental to service. It is not as if the second respondent does not have the power or jurisdiction to pass the same.
8. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said order has been passed on mala fide reasons, in the absence of any material sufficient enough to justify the said plea, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.
9. It is settled law that a person who alleges mala fide will have to prove the same with sufficient materials. Merely because the petitioner has filed the earlier writ petition, it cannot be a reason for the order of transfer passed. After all the petitioner has been only transferred from Palladam to Tiruppur, which is hardly about 30 kilometers.
10. In such view of the matter, the order of transfer dated 8.8.2014 is passed merely because of administrative reasons, W.P.No. 22601 of 2014 is dismissed.
11. In the result, W.P.No. 12175 of 2014 is disposed of. W.P.No. 22601 of 2014 is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.
