Allahabad High Court
Rajendra Singh & Another vs Addl. Commissioner ... on 26 March, 2021
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 6
Case :- CONSOLIDATION No. - 9218 of 2021
Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh & Another
Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner Consolidation Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Narayan Singh,Arvind Kumar Jauhari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prashant Singh Gaur
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
The petitioners allege that the transfer application moved by him before the Additional Commissioner Consolidation has been rejected on 05.01.2021 without application of mind. A specific allegation was made by the petitioners that the court concerned i.e., the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Lucknow despite repeated requests for adjourning the matter has not adjourned the matter and heard arguments of the contesting respondents' counsel ex parte. It has been submitted in the application for transfer, the petitioners had also stated that on one occasion although a request was made to take up the matter later, it was called out of turn and arguments heard and, therefore, the petitioners have no faith that his case shall be decided fairly by the opposite party No.2.
Sri Prashant Singh Gaur, Advocate appears for the opposite party No.3 and he says that the appeal before the Association is pending since 2016 and the counsel for the petitioners has sought adjournments whenever the matter come up for hearing. The record of the learned court below was summoned and the order sheet was perused by the Additional Commissioner and it was found by the Additional Commissioner that it was not only on one occasion that adjournment was sought and not given, in fact, on several occasions adjournment was sought and were given and the counsel for the appellant was trying to linger on the matter without any reason. In fact, at the time of taking up of the transfer application also the counsel for the petitioner/applicant did not appear to argue.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon 'Pushpa Devi Saraf and another vs. Jai Narain Parasrampuria and others', (1992) 2 SCC 676. This Court has carefully perused the judgment. It appears that in October, 1991, the appellants who were the defendants to the suit moved an application for transfer of the suit from the court of VIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur to any other Judge. This application was moved before the District Judge, Kanpur. In the affidavit in support of such application, several allegations were made against the VIIth Additional District Judge impugning his fairness, independence and impartiality in the matter. The learned District Judge called for a report from the Judge concerned. The Judge concerned i.e., the Presiding Officer denied the allegations and also expressed an opinion that the allegations amount to contempt of court. Ultimately, he stated that he has no objection to the transfer of the suit. The learned District Judge dismissed the application for transfer. The appellants moved the Allahabad High Court. The High Court dismissed the transfer petition taking into account the Supreme Court's order passed earlier directing expeditious disposal of the Suit No.537 of 1984 pending in the court of VIIth Additional Judge. The Special Leave Petition was preferred thereafter against the order passed by the High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court perused the comment sent by the Presiding Officer the VIIth Additional District Judge to the learned District Judge where he denied the imputations made against him and also explained and justified the order passed by him and also expressed an opinion that the allegations made against the Presiding Officer amounted to contempt of court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:-
"In our opinion, a Presiding Officer of a court should not be put to such an explanation, barring exceptional circumstances. Having heard the counsel for both the parties, we are of the opinion that the allegations in the transfer petition are not sufficient and do not warrant an order of transfer. We are satisfied that the learned Presiding Officer was only trying to hear the case expeditiously in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 14.08.1991. We express no opinion on the question whether the allegations made in the transfer petition filed in the court of learned District Judge and in the petition filed in the High Court do amount to contempt of court or not. That question will arise only when and if any proceedings are taken in that behalf. This is not our province at this stage. We also express no opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer complained of in the transfer petition. We, however, feel that the learned Presiding Officer has been unduly affected by the allegations leveled against him, as would be evident from his report. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to think that in the interest of the learned Presiding Officer himself, the suit may be sent to another court............"
It is apparent from the observations quoted herein above that the facts of the case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are completely different from the facts of the present case.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurcharan Das Chadha Vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1966 SC 1418 has observed that mere apprehension expressed on the impartiality of the Presiding Officer by a litigant is in itself not a good ground for transfer of a case that is being considered by the presiding Officer. The apprehension should be a reasonable apprehension that can be entertained by reasonable man. For the transfer of a case, a mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done does not suffice though the party is not required to show that justice will inevitably fail but it has to show that its apprehension is reasonable. The apprehension must appear to the Court to be a reasonable apprehension. Therefore, this court has no good ground to show interference in the order impugned. The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.3.2021
cks/-
