CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 07 MAD CK 0253

S. Angamuthu vs The Superintendent of Police and The Inspector of Police L and O

Madras High Court · Decided on 13 July 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.M. Sundresh, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 8008 of 2008 and M.P. No. 2 of 2008

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 333 words

M.M. Sundresh, J.—By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal.

2.

The petitioner has joined the Police Force as Grade-II Police Constable on 12.09.1986 and thereafter promoted as Grade-I Police Constable on 22.07.1997 and further as Head Constable on 22.07.2002. An order of transfer was passed against the petitioner on administrative ground by the Inspector General of Police in and by his proceedings dated 20.03.2008. The said order was communicated to the petitioner by the 1st respondent dated 26.03.2008. Challenging the order dated 26.03.2008, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is one without authority and therefore the same is liable to the set aside as without jurisdiction. According to the learned Counsel, it is only the Director General of Police who is the competent authority to transfer the petitioner.

4.

A Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that as per the Government Order passed in G.O. Ms. No. 116, Home (Pol. I) Department dated 06.02.2003, the Director General of Police has delegated powers to the Zonal Inspector General of Police in so far as the power of transfer is concerned. It is further stated that the order impugned is nothing but a consequential order to the order of transfer passed by the Inspector General of Police.

5.

A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that it is merely a communication sent by the 1st respondent informing the petitioner about the order of transfer passed by the Inspector General of Police. The petitioner has not impleaded the Inspector General of Police and also not challenged the order passed by him. Therefore in as much as the power has been delegated to the Inspector General of Police who is the competent authority and the order of transfer passed by him has not been challenged, the writ petition is totally misconceived. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.