Parmal Singh v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Court No. - 48 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3900 of 2023 Petitioner :- Parmal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1.Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K.Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

¶2In this writ petition there is a challenge to an order dated

17.10.2023, whereby the Additional Director of Consolidation has rejected the transfer application filed by the petitioner under Rule 65 (2) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holding Rules, 1954 on the ground that reasons given therein were not sufficient and has placed reliance on Kaneej Fatma Vs. Mohd. Tayyab, 2014:AHC:200376.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred paragraph numbers 5, 6,7 and 8 of transfer application which are reproduced hereinafter: "5-यह ककि मम0 महहोदय जजी किहो अवगत किरमनम हहै ककि ममननजीय बन्दहोबस्त अधधिकिमरजी चकिबन्दजी महहोदय जहो कवपकजीगण किके धिन किके ्ቚभमव किके फलस्वरूप हमसमझ हहोकिर कवपकजीगण किके पक मम आदकेश हकेततु गतुणदहोष किके आधिमर पर किमयरवमहजी न किर ससंवहैधिमकनकि तथ्योሱ किके कवपरजीत जमतके हहए एकिपकजीय रूप सके कवपकजीगण किके पक मम हजी किमयरवमहजी किकी जम रहजी हहै, तथम आदकेश कनस्तमरण किम्ቚ यमस कवपकजीगण किके पक मम ककियके जमनके हकेततु सभजी कवधधिकि पहलतुओसं किम पपूणरतयम उलसंघन किरतके हहए ककियम जम रहम हहै। 6-यह ककि ममननजीय महहोदय जजी किहो अवगत किरमनम हहै ककि कवपकजीगण दमरम ममननजीय पजीठमसजीन अधधिकिमरजी दमरम समसंठ-गमसंठ किके फलस्वरूप ममननजीय महहोदय जजी किके समक स्थमनमन्तरण ्ቚमथरनम प्ቔ किके बमवत ्ቚमथरनम प्ቔ पर ससंजमन लकेकिर्ቚ मथቕኍ किहो कदग््ቝकमत किरनके किम ्ቚयमस ककियम गयम, जबककि ममननजीय महहोदय जजी किके समक किहोई भजी स्थमनमन्तरण ्ቚमथरनम प्ቔ कवपकजीगण दमरम ्ቚस्ततुत नहीሻ ककियम गयम हहै, परन्ततु पजीठमसजीन अधधिकिमरजी महहोदय सके हमसमझ हहोकिर कवपकजीगण दमरम इस ्ቚकिमर किकी अवहैधिमकनकि किमयरवमहजी ससंचमधलत किरमयजी जम रहजी हहै तथम पजीठमसजीन अधधिकिमरजी महहोदय दमरम कवपकजीगण किके पक मम आदकेश कनस्तमरण किम्ቚ यमस ककियम जम रहम हहै तथम पपूवर मम भजी चकिबन्दजी अधधिकिमरजी किके आदकेश पर कवपकजीगण किके पक मम स्थगन आदकेश पमररत ककियम गयम हहै। 7-यह ककि ममननजीय बन्दहोबस्त अधधिकिमरजी चकिबन्दजी जहो ककि कवपकजीगण किके दबमव एवसं ्ቚभमव मम आकिर किमयर किर रहके हहै, उनकिके दमरम सभजी ससंवहैधिमकनकि तथ्योሱ किम उलसंघन किरतके हहए ्ቚमथቕኍ किके तथ्योሱ एवसं समቌኚयोሱ किहो दर ककिनमर ककियम जम रहम हहै एवसं कवपकजीगण किके पक मम आदकेश ककियके जमनके हकेततु सभजी कवधधिकि पहलतुओसं किम पपूणरतयम उलसंघन किरतके हहए जल्दजी-जल्दजी किकी कतधथ कनयत किकी जम रहजी हहै तथम कवपकजीगण किके पक मम आदकेश हकेततु ससंवहैधिमकनकि तथ्योሱ किके कवपरजीत जमतके हहए तत्परतम बरतजी जम रहजी हहै। 8-यह ककि कवपकजी दमरम गमम मम यह ऐलमकनयम बयमन ककियम जम रहम हहै ककि उसकिकी पजीठमसजीन अधधिकिमरजी महहोदय सके बमत चजीत हहो चतुकिकी हहै, तथम आदकेश उसजी किके पक मम पजीठमसजीन अधधिकिमरजी महहोदय दमरम कनस्तमररत ककियम जमयकेगम तथम पजीठमसजीन अधधिकिमरजी महहोदय दमरम भजी खतुलके न्यमयमलय मम अपनजी मसंशम पपूणरतयम कवपकजीगण किके पक मम व्य्ሹ किकी जम चतुकिकी हहै, धजससके यह पपूणरतयम स्प्ቖ हहै ककि्ቚ मथቕኍ किहो उ्ሹ जनपद सके कनष्पक रूप सके न्यमय नहीሻ ्ቚम्቎ हहोगम तथम न्यमयकहत मम यह अत्यन्त आवश्यकि हहो गयम हहै ककि उ्ሹ अपजील किम स्थमनमन्तरण जनपद-मतुजफ्फरनगर सके ककिसजी भजी अन्य जनपद मम स्थमनमन्तररत किर कदयम जमय। धजससके हम ्ቚमथቕኍ किके समथ न्यमय हहो सकिम।"

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there are sufficient grounds to allow the transfer application since the petitioner was under a bonafide belief that he would not get justice from the concerned authority.

¶5Learned Additional Chief Standing has supported the impugned order.

¶6This Court has considered the issue of transfer in Dharmendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors,2023:AHC:153820 and relevant paragraphs thereof are mentioned hereinafter: "8. It is well settled that parties to litigation have confidence in the Presiding Officer in regard to the fairness so that justice prevails and in case any reasonable ground of unfairness, parties to lis can approach the authority or the Court to transfer the case from one Court to other. However, the reasons must have substance and may not be raised only for the sake of it or to prolong the litigation. xxx

¶11It would be apposite to refer a co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Transfer Application (Civil) No.524 of 2014, Kaneej Fatma Vs. Mohd. Tayyab decided on 12.11.2014. Relevant paragraphs of said judgment are reproduced hereinafter:

¶21The mere observations of Presiding Officer of the Court while hearing a case does not mean that he has made up his mind in a particular manner so as to justify an allegation of bias against such Presiding Officer and this would not justify transfer of case from one Court to another. A Judge is not expected to remain silent during course of hearing and not to express any opinion. A sphinx like attitude is not expected from a Presiding Officer. There has to be an effective discussion and effective attempt to conciliate or to clarify the misunderstanding or to get the issues clear, so that the issues can be settled or a just and proper decision can be arrived at. If in that process the Presiding Officer would make a statement it should not be misunderstood as an expression of decision. (Smt. Sangeetha S. Chugh vs. Ram Narayan V. and others, AIR 1995 Karnataka 112 and Official Assignee, Madras vs. Inspector-General of Registration, Bangalore and Anr., AIR 1981 Madras 54 or 24). xxx

¶23The allegations of bias of Presiding Officer, if made the basis for transfer of case, before exercising power under Section 24 C.P.C., the Court must be satisfied that the apprehension of bias or prejudice is bona fide and reasonable. The expression of apprehension, must be proved proved/ substantiated by circumstances and material placed by such applicant before the Court. It cannot be taken as granted that mere allegation would be sufficient to justify transfer. In Smt. Sudha Sharma (supra) the Court observed that it is the duty of learned counsel to draft the application and made allegations with utmost care and caution. Hon'ble B.M. Lal, J. (as His Lordship then was), said: "9. ......a foremost duty casts upon the counsel concerned while drafting and making allegations in the transfer petition against the Judge concerned with utmost care and caution, particularly in making wild allegations against the Presiding Judge. But, it appears that now-a-days it has become common feature to make allegations against the Court Presiding Judge. The counsel should realise that they are also officers of the Court. Introducing fanciful and imaginary allegations as grounds for transfer and harbouring apprehension such grounds that fair and impartial justice would not be done should always be deprecated.

¶10Nonetheless, it is also important for all those who are engaged in the task of administering justice to remember that it is incumbent on them to create and maintain such confidence and atmosphere by giving every litigant an assurance by their judicial conduct that fair and impartial justice will be imparted. It is necessary to create such a confidence in the mind of the litigants so that their faith may not be shaken in Courts of law."

¶24Mere suspicion by the party that he will not get justice would not justify transfer. There must be a reasonable apprehension to that effect. A judicial order made by a Judge legitimately cannot be made foundation for a transfer of case. Mere presumption of possible apprehension should not and ought not be the basis of transfer of any case from one case to another. It is only in very special circumstances, when such grounds are taken, the Court must find reasons exist to transfer a case, not otherwise. (Rajkot Cancer Society vs. Municipal Corporation, Rajkot, AIR 1988 Gujarat 63; Pasupala Fakruddin and Anr. vs. Jamia Masque and Anr., AIR 2003 AP 448; and, Nandini Chatterjee vs. Arup Hari Chatterjee, AIR 2001 Culcutta 26).

¶25Where 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.

¶26In 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."

¶7The grounds as quoted above are only on the basis of assumption and if such grounds are considered to be sufficient for transfer of a case, no Officer or Authority would be allowed to work fairly.

¶8Any apprehension that a person may not get a fair decision must be based on some material substance and it could not be based on mere assertion or apprehension.

¶9Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any order that any circumstances exist to substantiate his apprehension.

¶10In aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

¶11Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 23.11.2023 SB High Court of Judicature at Allahabad