PER ALOKE CHAKRABARTI, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, a Senior Finance and Accounts Officer at Calcutta in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as - 'ONGC ') was served with a transfer order dated 16 -02 -1999, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Calcutta to a region, known as E.R.B.C. When representations to get that transfer order withdrawn failed, the petitioner moved writ petition No. 13907(W) of 1999, which was finally disposed of on 14 -07 -1999 with a direction upon the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner made a representation and the same was decided by the Transfer Review Committee on 08 -10 -1999 and the decision was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 11 - 10 -1999 at Annexure '1' to the writ petition which has been impugned. Heard Mr. Ashok Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dipak Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order clearly shows that the respondents did not act with open mind and specific reliance was placed for the said purpose on the penultimate paragraph of the decision of the Transfer Review Committee, wherein the petitioner 's approaching the Courts of Law on repeated occasions had been deprecated. Contention has also been made with regard to the factual aspects in respect of other three officers whose cases were cited by the petitioner for showing arbitrariness. It is stated that the case of Shri P.C. Chakrabarty has been wrongly referred as there is no policy to give extension to somebody who agrees to forego promotion. With regard to other two officers also contentions have been made on facts. Main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is on law to contend that the impugned order having been passed on bad faith as is appearing from recording in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order, the same is liable to be quashed. It is stated that the said paragraph indicates the motivation of the authorities concerned which amounted to bad faith and/or bias.
(3.) IN support of such contention, reliance was placed on the judgment in the cases of P.C. Wadhowa v. Union of India reported in AIR 1964 SC 423, S.R. Venkataraman v. Union of India reported in AIR 1979 SC 49, Ram Ikbal Sharma v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1990 SC 1368, State of Punjab v. Gur -diwas Singh reported in AIR 1980 SC 319 and Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India reported in AIR 1989 SC 2138.;