S. Chandra, J. - (1.) THE appellant was employed as a booking clerk in the North-Eastern Railway. In January, 1961 he was transferred to Deori.a. On 13th October, 1969 the Divisional Superintendent passed an order transferring him to Haldharpur Flag Station in the district of Ballia. The appellant made a represen-. tation whereupon this order was modified on 12th May, 1970 and instead, he was transferred to Katka Flag Station in the Varanasi Division. The appellant filed a suit in the court of the Additional Munsif, Deoria for a declaration that the two transfer orders were illegal and for an injunction restraining the Railway autho rities from implementing those orders, or from transferring the plaintiff to any other flag station. Along with the plaint the appellant filed an application for an ad interim injunction. The learned Mun sif issued an ad interim injunction as prayed. The Railway authorities put in appearance and filed objections to the in junction. On 4th December, 1971, the learned Munsif confirmed the ex parte Injunction order. The defendants went up in appeal, but the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Deoria on 4th April, 1973.
(2.) THE defendants thereupon insti tuted a writ petition in this Court. A learned Single Judge held that it was in cumbent upon the civil court to have found that there was a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. This was not done. The issuance of the injunction was, hence, illegal. Merely because the balance of convenience was, in the opinion of the civil Courts, in favour of the plaintiff, was not sufficient to merit the grant of an injunction. On these findings the writ petition was allowed and the interim in junction order issued by the courts below was quashed. It is well settled that an in junction can be granted only if the plain tiff makes out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in his favour. The two conditions must co-exist before an order of injunction can be passed. It ha= also been held that orders of injunc tion are issued in rare cases. In Badri Prasad v. Chhokhey Lal (AIR 1926 All 406 at P. 408) it was observed that cases in which either an attachment or an in junction ought to be issued before judg ment, are extremely rare and the plain tiff ought to be able to satisfy the court of the practical certainty of success and of the existence of grave danger and of a real fear that a dishonest defendant un doubtedly liable, is making away with the probable fruits of the judgment. The view of the learned District Judge that he will not express any opin ion on the question whether there was a prima facie case in favour of the plain tiff, because expression of opinion on that point might cause prejudice to either party during the trial of the suit, dis closes palpable ignorance of the true legal position. Without a finding that there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff, an order of injunction can not validly be passed. If in order to de termine whether there is a prima facie case, an opinion has to be expressed on any controversial question, the same can not be avoided on the plea that it might prejudice either of the parties. An ex pression of opinion at this stage of the case cannot possibly prejudice the par ties at the hearing of the suit, because it is an expression of opinion on the mate rials then available on the record.
(3.) THE plaintiff did not allege in the plaint that he had a right to remain ported at Deoria, or that in law the de fendants were not entitled to transfer him. He challenged the order of transfer on a variety of grounds. One was that the order of transfer had not taken into con sideration the safety of the plaintiff's life in the light of past history. The past history was that the appellant was in volved in a murder case in which he was acquitted. Such, an involvement was, in our opinion, irrelevant to the question whether he should permanently be post ed at Deoria, or should be transferred to some other station. .Moreover, orders of transfer are purely administrative; the law does not require the authorities to indicate the reason or considerations which impel them to make an order of transfer. There is no allegation in the plaint which may satisfy any rational mind that this bald allegation has any substance. The order of transfer passed on 13th October, 1969 was subject to a representation by the appellant. In the representation he set out these very grounds. On a consideration of that re presentation the authorities passed ano ther order on 12th May, 1970. Prima facie, it cannot be said that the authorities did not take into consideration the allegation regarding the safety of the plaintiff's life. Similarly, it cannot be said that prima facie it has been established that the au thorities did not apply their mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and the alleged safety of the appellant.;