The petitioner sought quashing of an order transferring a land consolidation case due to alleged harassment by relatives. The High Court allowed the petition, holding the transfer was based on bald presumptions without evidence, violating principles of fairness.
The order dated 05.11.2024 allowing transfer of case was quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76834
Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1125 of 2024
Petitioner :- Vimla Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner Consolidation, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Tiwari,Prabhakar Nath Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jay Prakash Singh
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1 has passed the impugned order dated 05.11.2024, merely on the assumption/presumption of respondent no. 2, ignoring completely the fact that the earlier OfÏcer before whom the appeal was pending was transferred and on 10.09.2024, the transfer application preferred by respondent no. 2 has been dismissed as infructuous and within 12 days of joining of the new incumbent/OfÏcer, again alongwith the same allegations, the transfer application has been filed by respondent no. 2, the other brother of respondent no. 3.
''Opposing the prayer sought in the petition, learned counsel for the State-Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey as also Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for private opposite parties stated that the transfer of a case from one court to other is quite a serious issue and cannot be dealt with in such a casual manner. It is submitted that even if there is modicum of apprehension in the mind of the applicant, the allegation raised in the transfer application should prima facie at least be corroborated and transfer of a case cannot be allowed merely on the whims of a litigant. Attention has been drawn to the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ram Prakash vs. District Judge Balli and 16 Others reported in 2015(1) ARC 103, in which it has been held as follows:
on the whims of a litigant. The allegations raised in the transfer application should be prima facie altleast be corroborated with the facts and as held in the case of Ram Prakash versus District Judge Balli and 16 others reported in 2015(1) ARC 103. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-
"8. Where a transfer is sought making allegations regarding integrity or influence etc. in respect of the Presiding OfÏcer of the Court, this Court has to be very careful before passing any order of transfer.
9. 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 ofÏcers and maintain their self esteem, confidence and above all the majesty of institution of justice."
Order Date :- 21.11.2024 DiVYa
Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order allowing transfer of case based on bald allegations without corroboration warrants quashing.
Whether presumptions of bias against a newly transferred officer amount to bona fide grounds for transfer without documentary evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Misc. Single No. 23378 of 2021 (Jitendra Kumar versus Board of Revenue, U.P Lko and others) dated 26.10.2021Referred¶9
Writ B No. 855 of 2022 (Ram Ikbal versus Commissioner Consolidation, Sultanpur and others) dated 03.01.2023Referred¶9
Ram Prakash vs. District Judge Balli and 16 Others reported in 2015(1) ARC 103Distinguished¶17
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vimla
Addl. Commissioner Consolidation, Lucknow
Vijay Pal
A third Respondent (brother of Respondent no. 2)
A fourth Respondent (brother of Respondent no. 3)
Manish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
