JUDGMENT A. K. Yog, J.
1. Petitioner Is aggrieved from the order of transfer dated May 20, 1999 (Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition). Petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition No. 31428 of 1999 which was finally disposed of by learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated July 30. 1999 (copy of which has been filed as Annexure-VIII). In compliance to the said order of High Court, the concerned authority decided his representation vide order dated 6th September. 1999 (Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition).
2. Petitioner has not pointed out any Illegality or manifest error apparent on the face of record in the said order dated 6th September. 1999. Petitioner has made his submission primarily on the ground that transfer order is vitiated because of mala fide of the concerned officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to paragraphs 6 and 10 of the writ petition in support of the ground of 'mala fide', in para 21 of the petition It is alleged that language of the order itself speaks of the mala fide.
3. I am unable to find requisite pleadings sufficient to constitute mala fide for holding that the transfer order in question is vitiated in law.
4. First of all petitioner has not impleaded the officials by name against whom he is making allegation of mala fide. Merely use of the word 'mala fide' in a few paragraphs of the writ petition, does not satisfy legal requirements of requisite pleadings under law. Petitioner should have made specific and categorical averments constituting mala fide.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner then referred to complaint dated 11.8.1997 (Annexure 6 to the Writ Petition).
6. Filing of annexures cannot be substituted for making necessary averments in the pleadings.
Reference may be made to the decision in Seva Singh and others v. State of U. P. and others. 1999 (1) UPLBEC 423.
7. Secondly judgment of the High Court dated 30.7.1999 (Annexure-VIII to the Writ Petition) shows that petitioner did not rely and press the plea of mala fide in earlier writ petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he had taken such a plea in the writ petition. Copy of the earlier writ petition has not been placed for perusal before this Court. Believing the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that such a plea was taken in earlier Writ Petition, it will be noted that Petitioner cannot be now allowed to urge the plea of 'mala fide' because he did not press the said plea when he had filed the earlier writ petition as is evident from the perusal of the Judgment in the said earlier Writ Petition (Annexure-VIII to the Writ Petition).
9. Writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed summarily. No order as to costs.