Allahabad High Court
Vinod Kumar Singh vs Board Of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Its ... on 16 November, 2022
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 707 of 2022 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. Its Chairman And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and notices on behalf of State-respondents have been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel.
By means of the instant petition the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 1.11.2022, passed by respondent no.1 whereby the application for transfer moved by the petitioner in respect of seeking transfer of case pending before the respondent no.2 has been rejected.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no.1 has exercised the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 212 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 with material irregularities inasmuch as upon the application for transfer which was moved, without even calling for the comments from the Presiding Officer concerned, with a stereotyped order the transfer application has been dismissed. It has also been submitted that the transfer application raised certain apprehension which was prevailing in the mind of the petitioner regarding impartiality of the Presiding Officer concerned and for the said reason the application for transfer was moved incorporating the aforesaid incident as well as the apprehension which was sufficient material and it was duly supported by an affidavit and in the aforesaid circumstances the least that should have been done was to have called for the comments to prima facie ascertain the veracity of the allegations made in the transfer application before rejecting it and the order impugned does not even indicate any reason regarding the allegations made by the petitioner which did find favour with the authority, consequently the matter requires indulgence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pushpa Devi Saraf and another Vs. Jai Narain Parasrampuria and others; AIR 1992 SC 1133.
From the perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that mutation proceedings are engaging the attention of respondent no.2. An application for transfer was moved by the petitioner before respondent no.1 and a copy thereof has been brought on record as Annexure No.8. The allegations against the Presiding Officer can be seen from paragraphs 7 to 10 of the application which has been filed by the petitioner.
From the perusal of said application, all that can be said is that vague allegations have been levelled against the Presiding Officer. There are no material particulars which may give credence to the allegations made in the said application. It will also be relevant to note that some part of the allegation which is more specifically mentioned in paragraphs 7 and 9 is in respect of the manner in which the proceedings have been taken forward by the Presiding Officer. It is only in paragraph 10 of the said application that an allegation against the officer concerned has been raised but as already noticed above, is vague without material particulars. So much so that even the alleged date to which that alleged incident refers has not been mentioned and wild sweeping allegations have been made.
The respondent no.1 by means of the impugned order has categorically noticed that upon perusal of transfer application there is no material on record by which the allegations can be substantiated and for the aforesaid reasons the application for transfer has been dismissed. Even if this Court prima facie considers the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner who has candidly submitted that there is no material brought on record with this petition as well to substantiate any material regarding the facts which have been stated in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the transfer application. Thus in absence of any cogent material and on the basis of mere allegation the transfer application without something more could not have been allowed and to this extent the reason given by the respondent no.1 that the transfer application is rejected for want of substantiating material cannot be faulted.
In so far as the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Pushpa Devi Saraf (supra) is concerned, that does not apply to the facts of the case, rather in case if the said decision is read as a whole, it would be found that transfer application which was rejected by the Court of first instance was affirmed by High Court, so also by the Apex Court as is evident from para 6 of the said judgment. Thus for the aforesaid reasons that the aforesaid decision does not come to the rescue of the petitioner.
This Court is reminded of two decisions rendered by this Court in the cases of Raja Ram and others Vs. Ashok Kumar and others; 2014 SCC Online ALL 15845 and Ram Prakash Vs. District Judge, Ballia and others; 2014 SCC Online ALL 15491, wherein the issue of transfer has been considered and it has also been noticed that acting upon mere allegations without any material particulars and substantiated material would cause deleterious effect on the administration of justice. In the case of Raja Ram and others (Supra) this Court in paragraphs 7 and 9 has held as under:
"7. Mere presumptions or possible apprehensions are not sufficient therefor ; only good and sufficient grounds, clearly set out in the order, may justify the transfer and a transfer should not readily be granted for any fancied notion of a litigant. It should be granted to ensure that the applicant gets fair and impartial justice.
9. Thus, The power vested in the High Court under Section 24 C.P.C. is comprehensive and discretionary. The discretion to be exercised, as we all know, is a judicial discretion based on sound reasonings. While considering the question of transfer, the very bias which has to be law laid down for transfer of the same is to be considered and in the present case, the reason that opposite party no.2 is a practicing lawyer cannot be a ground for transfer when there is no concurrent reason that the said person in any manner may influence the proceedings of the matter and if on the said ground, the case is transferred then it is practically himself to get influence against the practitioner lawyer in a particular district as transfer should not readily be granted for any fancied notion of a litigant. It should be granted to ensure that the applicant gets fair and impartial justice."
Further, in the case of Ram Prakash (Supra) this court has observed in paras 5 to 12 as under:
"5. The 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.
10. Nonetheless, 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."
6. Mere 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. jamila Mosque and anr., AIR 2003 AP 448; and, Nandini Chatterjee Vs. Arup Hafi Chatterjee, AIR 2001 Culcutta 26)
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The justice delivery system knows no caste, religion, creed, colour etc. It is a system following principle of black and white, i.e., truth and false. Whatever is unfair, that is identified and given its due treatment and whatever is good is retained. Whoever suffers injustice is attempted to be given justice and that is called dispensation of justice. The prevailing system of dispensation of justice in Country, presently, has different tiers. At the ground level, the Courts are commonly known as "Subordinate Judiciary" and they form basis of administration of justice. Sometimes it is said that subordinate judiciary forms very backbone of administration of justice. Though there are various other kinds of adjudicatory forums, like, Nyaya Panchayats, Village Courts and then various kinds of Tribunals etc. but firstly they are not considered to be the regular Courts for adjudication of disputes, and, secondly the kind and degree of faith, people have, in regular established Courts, is yet to be developed in other forums. In common parlance, the regular Courts, known for appropriate adjudication of disputes basically constitute subordinate judiciary, namely, the District Court; the High Courts and the Apex Court.
10. The hierarchy gives appellate and supervisory powers in various ways. The administrative control of subordinate judiciary has been conferred upon High Court, which is the highest Court at provincial level and is under constitutional obligation to see effective functioning of subordinate Courts by virtue of power conferred by Article 235 read with 227 of the Constitution. No such similar power like Article 235, in respect to High Court is exercisable by Apex Court, though it is the highest Court of land. Its judgments are binding on all. Every order and judgment of any Court or Tribunal etc., in the Country, is subject to judicial review by Apex Court. This is the power on judicial side.
11. In Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, In Re:, (1998) 7 SCC 248, the Court said that superior Courts, i.e. High Court as also the Apex Court is bound to protect the Judges of subordinate Courts from being subjected to scurrilous and indecent attacks, which scandalise or have the tendency to scandalise, or lower or have the tendency to lower the authority of any court as also all such actions which interfere or tend to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings or obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. No affront to the majesty of law can be permitted. The fountain of justice cannot be allowed to be polluted by disgruntled litigants. The protection is necessary for the courts to enable them to discharge their judicial functions without fear.
12. If there is a deliberate attempt to scandalize a judicial Officer of subordinate Court, it is bound to shake confidence of the litigating public in the system and has to be tackled strictly. The damage is caused not only to the reputation of the concerned Judge, but, also to the fair name of judiciary. Veiled threats, abrasive behaviour, use of disrespectful language, and, at times, blatant condemnatory attacks, like the present one, are often designedly employed with a view to tame a Judge into submission to secure a desired order. The foundation of our system is based on the independence and impartiality of the men having responsibility to impart justice i.e. Judicial Officers. If their confidence, impartiality and reputation is shaken, it is bound to affect the very independence of judiciary. Any person, if allowed to make disparaging and derogatory remarks against a Judicial Officer, with impunity, is bound to result in breaking down the majesty of justice."
Having noticed the dictum and applying the principles to the instant case this Court is satisfied that there is no material to substantiate the alleged allegations in the transfer application and this Court does not find that respondent no.1 has committed any error in rejecting the same.
Accordingly, writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed as such.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to the costs.
Order Date :- 16.11.2022 Ram.