AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA versus RAJEEV RATAN PANDEY & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 13 S.C.R. 343 · Decided: 17-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE, RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 343 
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
RAJEEV RATAN PANDEY & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5550 of 2009) 
AUGUST 17, 2009 
B 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
-"' 
SERVICE LAW: 
Transfer - Writ petition before High Court challenging c 
order of transfer as violative of transfer policy - Later, a 
supplementary affidavit filed alleging ma/a fides - High Court 
by an interim order staying transfer - Held: In matters of 
transfer of government employees scope of judicial review is 
~ . limited and courts would not interfere with a transfer order D 
~ 
j._ 
lightly ~ The burden of proving ma/a fide is on the party w~o 
alleges it - In the instant case, prima facie, the a/legation of 
ma/a fide is an after thought - Besides, except a bald 
statement, there is no convincing and cogent material on 
record in proof of the allegation - High Court erred in staying 
E 
the order of transfer - Order of High Court set aside -
Constitution of India, 1950 ..:.. Articles 136 and 226 - Judicial 
review - Interim order - Interference with . 
• • 
Respondent no.1 filed a writ petition before the High 
Court challenging the order of his transfer from Lucknow 
F 
to Calicut as violative of the transfer policy, and prayed 
for interim stay of the order of transfer. Initially, no stay 
was granted. Subsequently, the respondent filed a 
supplementary affidavit stating that the transfer order was 
actuated with mala tides. Thereupon the High Court G 
passed an interim order staying operation of the order of 
~ transfer. Aggrieved, the Department filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
343 
H 
-
344 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. In a matter of transfer of a government 
B 
employee, scope of judicial review is limited and High 
I 
Court would not interfere with an order of transfer lightly. 
This is so because the courts do not substitute their own 
decision in th~ matter of transfer. [Para 5) [347-F] 
1.2. That the burden of proving mala-fides is on a 
person leveling such allegations and the burden is 
heavy, admits of no legal ambiguity. In the instant case, 
at the threshold, no allegations of mala fides have been 
pleaded in the writ petition. It is only by way of a 
C supplementary affidavit that allegations of mala fides have 
been put forth by respondent no. 1 but even such 
aHegations are not supported by any material 
whatsoever, leave aside any convincing and cogent 
material. Therefore, the plea of mala fides hardly deserved 
D ·acceptance, prima facie, justifying stay of operation of a 
transfer order. [Para 5]'[346-G-H; 347-A-D] 
2. Ordinarily, this Court would not entertain a matter 
arising out of an ad-interim order, but since U is founded 
on a plea which apparently is afterthought, the Court is 
E constrained to interfere with the matter. Accordingly, the 
impugned order is set aside. [Para 4 and 6] [346-C-D; 347" 
G-H] 
State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal (2004) 11 SCC 402, 
F 
relied on. 
Arvind Dattatraya Dhande v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 
(1997) 6 sec 169, held inapplicable. 
.c 
Case Law Reference: 
(200.4) 11 sec 402 
(1997) 6 sec 169 
relied on 
Para 5 
held inapplicable 
Para 5 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
H 5550 of 2009. 
r
I.-
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. RAJEEV RATAN 345 
PANDEY & ORS. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 03.07.2009 of the High 
A 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in 
Writ Petition No.820 of 2009. 
Gopal Subramanium, S.G., Atul Nanda, Rameeza Hakeem 
Law Associates & Co. for the Appellant. 
B 
Shail Kr. Dwivedi, AAG, Anuvrat Sharma Vandana Mishra, 
Alka Sinha, for the Respondents. 
~-· 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
c 
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against an ad-
interim Order dated July 3, 2009 whereby the Division Bench 
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, 
Lucknow stayed the operation of transfer order dated May 15, 
> • 
2009. 
D 
J. 
3. Rajeev Ratan Pandey, Senior Manager, Engineering 
(Civil), Respondent No. 1, vide order dated May 15, 2009, 
came to be transferred from Lucknow (Northern region) to 
Calicut (Southern region) by the appellant. The Respondent No. 
1 challenged the order of transfer by filing a writ petition before 
E 
the High Court on the grounds, viz., that the order of transfer 
has been issued against the transfer policy inasmuch as it 
provides that the inter-regional transf
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.