1. Heard Mr. P.S. Shendurnikar, learned Advocate for the petitioners, and Mr. V.C. Solshe, learned Advocate for respondent no.3 / caveator.

2. The petitioners were seeking transfer of change report bearing No. 590/2005 from the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Latur, to Assistant or Deputy Charity Commissioner of any other region. This prayer has been rejected by the Joint Charity Commissioner.

3. The grounds of transfer have been incorporated in para 15 of the application which are quoted below for ready reference :-

" It is respectfully submitted that applicants have no faith on judicial work of respondent No.10. Respondent No.10 is against applicants in his behaviour and favouring to respondent nos.1 to 4. On the dais itself respondent no.10 used to threat and insult the applicants while attending his court. Respondent no.10 is demanding huge amount in presence of all applicants on dais itself on 4-9-2007. On next date on 19-11-2007 applicants were present but his advocate Mr. Ghodke was not present, so he filed application for adjournment. Then respondent no.10 expressed that applicants cannot give demanded amount and he further said that others are paying more and hurriedly kept matter on next day i.e. on 20-11-2007 and on that day threatened that he will going to dismiss applicants case when third party application U/Sec. 73A is pending before the court. On the same day say was given by the other side and third party application is allowed on 20-11-2007 and matter is now for the say to change report, but threatening to dismiss the change report."

4. As it reveals, the transfer is seen to have been sought on four grounds namely :-

(a) Threatening and insulting;

(b) The Presiding Officer is threatening to dismiss the change report.

(c) Demand of "Huge amount" i.e. money on the dais itself;

(d) Third party application has been hurriedly allowed, and;

5. Petitioner has placed reliance on two judgments, namely :

(1) Lalita Rajya Lakshmi and another Vs. State of Bihar and another

(AIR 1957 Patna 198).

(2) Pushpa Devi Saraf and another Vs. Jai Narain Parasrampuria and others

((1992) 2 Supreme Court Cases 676).

6. In first case from Patna High Court, there was demonstrable apprehension as the person having likelihood of interest or bias was that the wife of the Presiding Officer was a member of legislative assembly and she for the Government was shown to have interest in the litigation. The transfer application was entertained on doctrinal basis, though not due to warrant of facts of the case.

7. In second case, allegations more or less of similar nature as in present case were made. Honourable Supreme Court ruled against applicant on the allegations, however, for guarding the Presiding Officer against such scurrilous attitude, directed the District Judge concerned to transfer the case.

8. Now, this court would like to advert to the factual background of the case at hand.

9. This court would now analyse the fact of the matter i.e. four grounds taken in para from transfer application quoted adverbatim in para 3.

(a) Threatening and insulting &

(b) Threatening to dismiss the change report.

10. Reference to threatening and insulting contained in paragraph 15 of the application at two places is extremely vague. Language of admonition if any used by Presiding Officer in the course of proceedings would be a matter of routine course if the parties are delaying the proceedings. For enabling higher forum to distinguish between language of admonition or cautioning with the language of threatening and insulting, adverbatim reproduction of the language used by the Presiding Officer was necessary. The petitioners have for reasons best known to them withheld this information from the Joint Charity Commissioner as well as from court and have left their apprehensions for speculation. I