Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak vs Indore Municipal Commissioner on 28 November, 2022
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 28 th OF NOVEMBER, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 5297 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
DEEPAK S/O LATE SHRI ASHOK KASLIWAL, AGED
ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O
KALYAN BHAWAN 582 M.G. ROAD INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(PETITIONER IN PERSON )
AND
1. INDORE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER INDROE
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OPP SHRI KRISHNA
CINEMA INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN AND COUNTRY
PLANNING SHOPPING COMPLEX, OLD A.B. ROAD,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. M/S SUDHIR VERMA AND ASSOCIATES
CONSTRUCTION PVT. THROUGH DIRECTOR SHRI
SUDHARI S/O SHRI R.P. VERMA 32/3, NEW
PALASIYA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DILIP VED S/O SHRI LAKSHMINARAYAN VED 5,
DIAMOND COLONY INDORE NOW 582, MG ROAD,
BUILDING CONSTRUCTED BY SUDHIR VERMA
HAVING ACCESS THRUGH BACK LANE INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SMT. NILAM W/O SHRI DILIP VED 5, DIAMOND
COLONY INDORE NOW 582, MG ROAD, BUILDING
CONSTRUCTED BY SUDHIR VERMA HAVING
ACCESS THROUGH BACK LANE INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. NITESH S/O SHRI DILIP VED 5, DIAMOND
COLONY INDORE NOW 582, MG ROAD, BUILDING
CONSTRUCTED BY SUDHIR VERMA HAVING
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 01-Dec-22
5:40:55 PM
2
ACCESS THROUGH BACK LANE, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SMT. PRIYANKA W/O SHRI NITESH VED 5,
DIAMOND COLONY INDORE NOW 582, MG ROAD,
BUILDING CONSTRUCTED BY SUDHIR VERMA
HAVING ACCESS THROUGH BACK LANE, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
T h is petition coming on for order this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is heard on the question of admission.
2 . By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28-09-2022 in MJC No. 493/2022 passed by the District Judge, Indore whereby application under Section 24 of the CPC filed by him for transfer of his case pending before the 22nd District Judge, Indore to another Court of competent jurisdiction has been dismissed.
3. The application was filed by the petitioner on the ground that against an order passed by the Court concerned he had preferred a review petition which has been dismissed by it without taking into consideration the submissions of the petitioner and the case laws filed by him in support thereof. Even the written arguments of the petitioner were not taken into consideration. The Court is acting in such a manner in deciding the matters of the petitioner that it has led to a reasonable apprehension in his mind that he shall not get justice from that Court. It is apparent that the Court is prejudiced against the petitioner hence it is imperative for the case pending before it to be transferred to some other Court for him to be able to get justice Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 01-Dec-22 5:40:55 PM 3
4. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the District Judge by observing that there is no justifiable reason for transferring the cases pending before the Court concerned and no reasonable ground has been furnished by the petitioner for the same. Apprehension against the Judge has to be on the basis of reasonable grounds which are not present in the matter.
5 . The petitioner has advanced his arguments at length to challenge the impugned order. He has submitted that the Court below has not properly appreciated his submissions and arguments and the case laws produced by him. He had made a prayer for calling of all the records of the concerned cases which prayer has also been declined. There is a reasonable apprehension in his mind that he shall not get justice from the Court which in itself is a sufficient ground for transfer of the case as has been held by Hon'ble apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and others. The case laws relied by him before the Court below have also been pressed into service by him which are Ramtakos Brett and Co. Ltd., Vs. Ganesh property, AIR 1998 SC 3085, Anand Prasad Lakshminivas Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1963 AIR 853, Union of India and others Vs. R.P. Singh CA No. 6717 of 2008 decided on 22-05-2014, Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav & others Vs. Karamver Kakasaheb Wagh decided on 11-12-2012, Sushil Kumar Metha Vs. Gobind Ram Bohara reproted in 1989 SCR, Supl. (2) 149, Vipulbha M. Chaudhar Vs. Gujarat Co-
oeprative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., AIR 2015 SC 1960, Bombay High Court-Shri Badrinarayan Shankar Vs. Omprakash Shankar Bhandari on 14 August, 2014 SA 566 of 2011 (AIR 2014 Bombay 154), Shanti Vijay and Com. etc Vs. Princess Fatima Fouzia and others reported as 1980 AIR 17. Bar Council of Maharashtra Vs. M.V. Dabholkar Etc. Etc. 1975 AIR 2C 92. It is hence submitted that the impugned order be set aside and the application filed Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 01-Dec-22 5:40:55 PM 4 by the petitioner under Section 24 of the CPC be allowed.
6. I have heard the petitioner at length and have perused the record. 7 . The petitioner had filed application before the Court concerned for review of an order passed by it which was rejected by it. On basis of such rejection the petitioner filed the application under Section 24 of the CPC before the District Judge. Merely because an order has been passed against the petitioner by a competent Court, that would not ipso-facto lead to a conclusion that the Court is prejudiced against him. The petitioner has the remedy of challenging such order in accordance with law. It is well settled that merely for passing of adverse orders by a Court against a party, it cannot be presumed that the said Court is biased against him. The petitioner did not avail his remedy against those orders and instead filed the application before the District Judge. From the record the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate the basis of reasonable apprehension in his mind as to why he would not get justice from the Court. Though at the instance of the petitioner earlier certain petitions were entertained by this Court earlier, but they were under the factual matrix as was existing at that time hence are of no benefit to him.
8. Thus, having considered the case from all aspects, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the District Judge. The same is hence affirmed as a result of which the instant petition stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE rashmi Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 01-Dec-22 5:40:55 PM 5 Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 01-Dec-22 5:40:55 PM