D.P.S.Chauhan, J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the impugned order of transfer dated 30-6-1993 made two fold sub-misssions ; firstly, he submitted that the Government Order dated 9-71991, which is annexed as Aanexure-V to the petition, provides for not making mass scale transfers and secondly, this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner in the year 1991 against the transfer order dated 24-9-1991 has directed that till the representation of the petitioner is decided, the order dated 24-9-1991, which related to his earlier transfer, if not already implemented, shall remain stayed.
(3.) So far as the first submission is concerned, the Government order is not applicable to the petitioner as the same is related to the year 1991-92 and the transfer in question is made in the year 1993-94. Secondly so far as the question of transfer in the earlier writ petition is concerned, learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the averment made in Paragraph 4 of the petition, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner filed an application on 10-10-1991, but no order has been passed till today. It is not disclosed in the said para as to before whom the application was filed and further the Court directed for making representation and not application. Even, the fact of filing application has been sworn on the basis of the perusal of record. In the circumstances, the averment cannot be relied on. However, if the petitioner was aggrieved for non-compliance of the order of the Court then he should have approached the court and have taken the proceedings against the concerned authority at that time but he slept over the matter since 10-10-1991 uptil 30-6-1993. The order of transfer relates to a particular sessions and, therefore, it cannot even otherwise he said that the subsequent order passed in the different session would automatically be affected by the earlier order unless this court in unequivocal terras issued a positive direction. In the present case, no positive direction was issued, but only an observation was made giving option to the petitioner that if he choses to do so, he may produce a certified copy of this order also alongwith the representation to the District Magistrate and the said order was stayed consequent upon the receipt of representation in the office of the District Magistrate for the duration the representation was decided. It is alleged thet the petitioner has not made any representation to the District Magistrate, but the application was made to sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Mau. The petitioner has himself not acted in accordance with the order of this Court and he cannot be allowed to blame the executive authority in the matter and the order dated 24-9-1991 never came in abeyance.;