Case should not be transferred for fancied notion of litigant, says HC

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 31

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has contended that transfer of a case from one court to another indirectly casts doubt on the competence and integrity of the judge from whom the case is sought to be transferred.

Justice Naresh Kumar Sanghi has also made it clear transfer should not readily be allowed for “any fancied notion of a litigant”. It should be granted to ensure that applicant gets fair and impartial justice.

The assertion came on a transfer application filed by Subhash Chander against Prikshit and other respondents for shifting a civil appeal pending adjudication before Rohtak Additional District Judge to “some other court of competent jurisdiction within the state of Haryana.”

His counsel told the court that one of the respondents was a senior advocate at Rohtak while his son was a judicial officer at Delhi. As such, the petitioner was apprehensive that he might not get justice from the Rohtak court.

The respondents, on the other hand, submitted at the very outset that the apprehension expressed by the counsel for the petitioner was misconceived. “However, keeping in view the high tradition of judicial system, they do not have any objection if the appeal is transferred from the court of Additional District Judge, Rohtak, to any other court within the jurisdiction of this court.”

Taking up the matter, Justice Sanghi asserted: “Mere presumptions or possible apprehension are not sufficient, therefore, only good and sufficient grounds fairly set out in the order may justify the transfer…. Paramount factor is the interest of justice. This court while dealing with this case has kept in mind the basic principle that justice should not only be done, but it must appear that it has been done.”

Justice Sanghi added that the counsel representing the respondents were “very fair in their submissions” that they had not opposed the petitioner’s prayer for the case’s transfer to maintain the high tradition of judicial system, but the averment made in the petition were misconceived.

Disposing of the petition, Justice Sanghi added in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case civil appeal titled: “Subhash Chander versus Prikshit and others was transferred to the court of Sonepat District Judge,” who shall either decide the appeal himself or assign it to any other court of competent jurisdiction within his Sessions Division.”