Satya Brata Sinha, J. - (1.)This application is directed against the order dated 19th Oct., 1994 passed by the General Manager (Personnel) of M/s. Coal India Ltd. whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been transferred from Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Dhanbad to South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur.
(2.)This petition has been filed on 8.2.95. It is stated by Mrs. Qureshi appearing on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner has already been released. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the said order of transfer has been passed in violation of the Circular letter issued by M/s. Coal India Ltd. to the effect that only willing persons should be transferred. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner's son is an accused in a murder case and keeping in view the fact that Jharkhan Mukti Morcha, a political organization, has threatened the petitioner's son with dire consequence, in the event the petitioner is transferred, he will be put to serious inconvenience. The learned counsel has in this connection relied on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Sri Krishna Kanto Roy Vs. The Director of Primary Education, West Bengal & Ors. reported in 1990 (1) CLJ 310 .
(3.)M/s. Coal India Ltd. as also M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. are State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner can be granted relief in exercise of the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India in the event the fundamental right of the petitioner is infringed. It is not disputed that Coal India Ltd. who is a holding company of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. is entitled to transfer its officers from one of its subsidiary companies to the other. Transfer is an incidence of service. Only because the petitioner has been transferred, it cannot be said that any of his fundamental rights has been infringed. Moreover, it is now well known in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court of India that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution cannot inter- fere with an order of transfer unless the same is mala fide or has been passed in gross violation of the mandatory provision of statutory rule. Neither any malice on the part of the authorities of M/s. Coal India Ltd. has been alleged nor the service conditions of the petitioner are covered by any statutory rule. Reference in this connection may be made to AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2444 and 1608. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the aforementioned decision of this Court in Krishna Kanto Roy's case cannot be held to be a good law.
;