Allowed

Dharmendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2023WRIB/1885/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed two writ petitions challenging transfer orders in consolidation disputes. The High Court held that transfer petitions based on vague, unsubstantiated allegations of bias, such as seeing parties in the chamber without details of date or time, are unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned transfer orders were set aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders transferring the appeals on 11.4.2023 are set-aside. The Additional Director Consolidation, Firozabad is directed to decide the appeals within six months.

Dharmendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:153820

¶2

Court No. - 48

¶3

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1885 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Dharmendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Janam Shahi,Pushpendra Singh Jadon Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar Kashyap,Amar Singh Kashyap

¶5

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1894 of 2023

¶6

Petitioner :- Satyabhan Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Janam Shahi,Pushpendra Singh Jadon Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Ram Janam Shahi, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Amar Singh Kashyap, learned counsel for respondents.

¶9

Both the writ petitions involve similar issues, therefore, are decided by this common order.

¶10

Petitioners are aggrieved that Transfer Petitions filed by common contesting respondent in the appeal filed by respective petitioner were allowed on a vague ground that he has witnessed petitioners/appellants sitting in the Chamber of Settlement Officer, Consolidation.

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that aforesaid averment has not been supported by any avement in regard to date, time and reason of his presence near the Chamber. Transfer petitions were allowed considering such allegation to be true and for the purpose of fairness of justice.

¶12

Aforesaid submission is opposed by learned counsel for contesting respondent and submits that aforesaid reason is sufficient to transfer the case in the interest of justice.

¶13

Learned counsel for contesting respondent placed reliance upon a judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sanjay Kumar Singh & 4 Ors Vs. Additional Director, Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow & Ors, in Consolidation No.10273 of 2017 which was dismissed on 24.5.2017. However, the observations made therein supports the submission of counsel for petitioner that:

¶14

" The other ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners seeking transfer of the case from the present Presiding Officer is the meeting of one lawyer and husband of respondent No.3 with the Presiding Officer in his chamber. It is not uncommon to take such grounds seeking transfer of the case pending before the subordinate court in case any of the party to the case

¶15

intends to prolong the proceedings."

¶16

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records.

¶17

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.

¶18

In the present case, as referred above, a vague and unsubstantiated reason was mentioned in the Transfer Petition that contesting respondent has seen the Opposite Parties/appellants/petitioners sitting in the Chamber of Presiding Officer. However, as referred above,it is not corroborated even by date or time.

¶19

As referred above in Sanjay Kumar Singh (supra) such grounds are very common.

¶20

It 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:

¶21

"21. The 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).

¶22

xxx

¶23

23. 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:

¶24

"9. ......a foremost duty casts upon the counsel concerned while drafting and

¶25

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.

¶26

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."

¶27

24. 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. Jamia Masque and Anr., AIR 2003 AP 448; and, Nandini Chatterjee vs. Arup Hari Chatterjee, AIR 2001 Culcutta 26).

¶28

25. 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.

¶29

26. 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."

¶30

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶31

12.Transfer Petition which is based on a vague assertion without any substantial evidence cannot be a basis to transfer the case and in case any order is passed against the respondents or any of the parties during hearing, they have liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law. It goes without saying that Presiding Officer is always bound to decide the case in accordance with law.

¶32

As referred above, the Transfer Petition filed by contesting respondents were allowed on a very vague ground which remained unsubstantiated and

¶33

therefore, they were apparently false, therefore, impugned order to transfer the appeals are unsustainable in the eyes of law, accordingly impugned orders dated 11.4.2023 passed by Additional Director Consolidation, Firozabad are set-aside and he is directed to decide the Appeal Nos.202254012600001302 and 202254012600001308 expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six months from today, if there is no legal impediment.

¶34

With the aforesaid direction, both the writ petitions are disposed of.

¶35

Order Date :- 2.8.2023

¶36

¶37

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dharmendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aash Mohammad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bharat Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Radhey Shyam Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Amar Singh and Others Vs D.D.C. and Others

Sheoraj Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Satyabhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others