Monday, September 12 2005 16:00 Hrs (IST) - World Time -

Patna: The Patna High Court today (Sept 12, 2005) issued notices to the Union Government and Bihar Government in the matter of transfer of 17 IPS officers and Governor Buta Singh writing to Railway Minister Lalu Prasad seeking favor for a railway officer.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice J N Bhatt and Justice Shashank Kumar Singh also ordered issue of notices to the advisor to the Bihar Governor Arun Pathak, Chief Secretary G S Kang and the then home secretary A K Biswas on two Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

The PILs challenged the recent transfer of 17 IPS officers that had prompted the chief secretary to go on protest leave, and the governor's recommendatory letter to the Railway Minister.

The first PIL filed by suspended deputy inspector general of police (DIG) Ajay Verma complained about rules being flouted in the transfer of the 17 IPS officers, including the then Siwan superintendent of police Ratan Sanjay, in which the Chief Secretary was not not consulted.

Alleging that the transfers appeared to have been effected in personal interest more than the public interest, the petitioner prayed the court to direct the respondents to justify the entire proceeding.

Petitioner Kamta Singh, in a second PIL, filed through his counsel M Y Giryage, referred to the governor writing a recommendatory letter to Railway minister Lalu Prasad seeking transfer of a railway officer Vijay P Meshram as chief controller of stores of Western Railway.

It prayed the court to settle the law whether a governor could write such a letter.

The petitioner's counsel contended that the letter was written in violation of governor's oath of office under Article 159 of the Constitution.

The petitioner contended that while taking oath the governor has to swear that he would devote himself to the service and the well being of the people of the state.

"How was the interest of Bihar and its people be served by Buta Singh writing a letter to the Railway minister seeking favor for a person who does not not belong to the state?" the petitioner asked.

Advocate General Shashi Anugrah Narayan argued that the PILs were not maintainable as the relief sought was beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court.