Delhi High Court
Ms.Veena vs Archeological Survey Of India & ... on 19 July, 2010
Author: V.B.Gupta
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
CM (M) No.886/2010 & CM No.12193/2010
% Judgment reserved on: 16th July, 2010
Judgment delivered on: 19th July, 2010
Ms.Veena
W/o Sh. Sudesh Choudhry
R/o Qtr. No.521, Z Type
Opp B D Estate Mkt.,
Timar Pur, Delhi-54
....Petitioner.
Through: Mr.Pawan Kumar, Advocate
Versus
(1) Archeological Survey of India
Through its Superintending Archaeologist
Safdurjang Tomb, New Delhi.
(2) Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Through its Managing Director
(3) Sh. Sanjeev Sharma
Manager, Metro Station,
Kashmere Gate, Delhi-54
(4) Sh. Sudershan,
Manager, Property Development Cell
(5) Sh. Devender Singh
Assistant Revenue Inspector,
(6) Sh. Vikas Kumar
GM (Operation)
(7) Sh. Sanjay Sanger @ Sanjeev Sanger
S.I. Delhi Police deputed as Security
Officer in DMRC
CM (M) No.886/2010 Page 1 of 5
All defendants No.2 & 4 to 7 having
offices at:
DMRC Bhawan,
Barakhambha Road,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001.
....Respondents.
Through: Nemo.
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes
V.B.Gupta, J.
Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been
filed on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside of order dated 3.6.2006 passed by
District Judge, Delhi, vide which application of petitioner for transfer of the suit
pending before Sh. Pankaj Gupta, Additional District Judge, Delhi to any other
Court, was dismissed.
2. The allegations made in Transfer Petition are that since the initiation of the
suit before Sh. Pankaj Gupta, Additional District Judge, the conduct of learned
Judge is such that petitioner has lost confidence to get justice from the said Court,
on the grounds that upon initiation of the suit on 17.3.2010, the Court, did not
consider the urgency of the matter and listed the same for 28.4.2010.
3. Secondly, on 19.3.2010, the Court outrightly dismissed the preponement
application filed by the petitioner.
4. Thirdly, on 15.5.2010, the Court on the hearing of two applications filed
by the petitioner, dismissed the same and imposed heavy costs upon the petitioner.
5. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India. It is well settled that jurisdiction of this Court under this article is limited.
6. In Mohammed Yusuf vs. Faij Mohammad and Ors., 2009 (1) SCALE 71,
Supreme Court held;
"The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 & 227
of the Constitution is limited. It could have set aside and
orders passed by the Learned trial court and Revisional Court
only on limited ground, namely, illegality, irrationality and
procedural impropriety".
7. In Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani and Anr. Vs. Pratapsing Mohansing
Pardesh Deceased through his Heirs and Legal representatives, JT 1995 (7) SC
400, Apex Court observed;
"The High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all
species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted
to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of
fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave
injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes."
8. In view of the above principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it is to be
seen as to whether present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
is maintainable or not.
9. Relevant portion of impugned order read as under:-
"Merely because the Learned Presiding Officer has not
granted any relief in favour of the Petitioner, or that Learned
Presiding Officer has dismissed the Misc. applications
moved by the Petitioner-either for preponement of hearing or
the application u/section 151 for restraining the defendant
no.2 to participate in the arbitration proceedings already
initiated in terms of the agreement between the parties, it
does not mean that the Learned Presiding Officer has acted
arbitrarily or with bias. I may mention that the orders dated
17th March, 19th March, 28th April and 15th May, 2010 are
the judicial orders passed by the trial Court, she may take
recourse to the remedy available to her under law. In the
circumstances, there is nothing on record to suggest that the
Learned Presiding Officer has proceeded with the case in a
biased or prejudiced manner. Its is settled law that transfer
from one Court to another should not be granted readily for
any fancied notion of the petitioning litigant because of the
reason that such transfer of a case from one judge to another
in effect casts doubt on the integrity, competence and
reputation of the concerned judge."
10. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner ever challenged any
of the Judicial orders passed by Sh. Pankaj Gupta, Additional District Judge.
Merely, the Court has not granted any relief to the petitioner, is no ground to seek
transfer from that Court to another. There is no illegality, irrationality or
procedure impropriety in the impugned order.
11. Thus, I find no reason to disagree with the reasoning given by the learned
District Judge. There is no merit or legal force in this petition. The same is most
bogus and frivolous one. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed with costs of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand).
12. Petitioner is directed to deposit the costs by way of cheque in the name of
Registrar General of this Court, within four weeks from today.
13. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Trial Court.
14. List for compliance on 25th August, 2010.
19th July, 2010 V.B.GUPTA, J.
mw
