ORDER Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Heard Sri K. S. Rathor, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S. K. Rai, Additional Standing Counsel of the Government of India, representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
2. The petitioner, who is a member of R.A.F. (Rapid Action Force) of 101 Battalion, aggrieved by the order dated 3rd January, 2003 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), whereby his representation against the transfer order has been rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, the respondent No. 4, approached this Court by means of this writ petition.
3. From the perusal of the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner has not prayed for quashing the order of transfer. The petitioner has further prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondent No. 1 to post the petitioner and his wife at the same station, who is also a member of the same Battalion, as they will now be separated because of the transfer of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any statutory provision which may compel the respondents to retain the husband and wife on the same station. Since the representation of the petitioner against his transfer has already been rejected therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Smt. Shilpi Bose and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., AIR 1991 SC 532 and Union of India and Ors. v. S. L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357, this Court cannot exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the order of transfer is either mala fide, or is in violation of the some statutory provisions. None of these two grounds have been urged. So far as the posting of husband and wife at the same station is concerned, the case of Union of India and Ors. v. S. L. Abbas (supra) is very clear on the subject and no benefit can be given to the petitioner even if there are some Government orders.
5. In this view of the matter, this petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed.