Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned State counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties no.1 to 4.
In view of order being proposed to be passed, notices to opposite parties no.5 to 8 stand dispensed with.
Petition has been filed against the order dated 20.07.2021 whereby transfer application no.271 of 2021 filed by the petitioners under Rule 65(2) of the Rules framed under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been rejected. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the revision no.66 filed by opposite party no.5 is pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mau but since the petitioner has a serious apprehension with regard to the fairness of procedure and judgment from the concerned presiding officer, the transfer application was filed seeking transfer of the said revision to another court.
Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that fairness in justice should be of paramount importance and nothing whatsoever should vitiate the faith of a litigant in the presiding officer or the court concerned. It is submitted that even mere apprehension with regard to unfairness should be treated seriously and it should be fitting that such an apprehension should be entertained and the matter should be transferred in another place only in the interest of justice.
Mr. Param Shankar, learned State counsel has refuted the submission advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that transfer of a case from one court to other is quite a serious issue and cannot be dealt with in such a casual manner. It is submitted that even if there is modicum of apprehension with the applicant in his mind, the allegation raised in the transfer application should prima facie at least be corroborated and transfer of a case cannot be allowed merely on the whims of a litigant. He has drawn attention to the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ram Prakash vs. District Judge Balli and 16 Others reported in 2015(1) ARC 103 in which it has been held as follows:
"8. Where a transfer is sought making allegations regarding integrity or influence etc. in respect of the Presiding Officer of the Court, this Court has to be very careful before passing any order of transfer.
9. In the matters where reckless false allegations are attempted to be made to seek some favourable order, either in a transfer application, or otherwise, the approach of Court must be strict and cautious to find out whether the allegations are bona fide, and, if treated to be true on their face, in the entirety of circumstances, can be believed to be correct, by any person of ordinary prudence in those circumstances. If the allegations are apparently false, strict approach is the call of the day so as to maintain not only discipline in the courts of law but also to protect judicial officers and maintain their self esteem, confidence and above all the majesty of institution of justice."
In the present case upon perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that transfer application of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the allegations made in the transfer application have not been corroborated even on a prima facie basis.
Upon applicability of the aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances, it is evident from the impugned order that merely allegations have been levelled against the presiding officer without even prima facie corroboration of the same. In view of aforesaid, it is clear that at this stage no error has been committed while passing the impugned order in the transfer application, since in case there is any apprehension in the mind of the applicant, the allegations made in the transfer application at least have to be prima facie corroborated.
In view of aforesaid, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed at the admission stage itself.
Order Date :- 19.8.2021 Subodh/-