The High Court has the power to transfer cases from one division to another for fair and impartial trial under its administrative power, and mere inconvenience to the accused persons cannot be a ground to challenge the transfer order.

1. ORDER :-

In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction setting aside the administrative order passed by respondent No. 2, the High Court of Judicature at Patna transferring the Sessions Trial No. 115 of 1996, from the Court of Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur to the Court of Shri Shiv Shankar Sharma, VIIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Patna. Further relief has been sought for the effect that the trial be allowed to be conducted by the same Court of Muzaffarpur or by any other Court at Muzaffarpur. At the very outset the petitioners disclosed in the writ petition that the petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of the Hon ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned administrative order of the High Court on the ground that it infringed the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. However, the aforesaid application was withdrawn from the Supreme Court on 25-7-1996, for agitating the matter in this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, copy of the Supreme Court order has been filed and marked as Annexure 1 to this writ application.

2 The petitioners case, in short, was that on 5-12-1994, a First Information Report was lodged by the informant Mr. Mohan Razak, Deputy Superintendent of Police, East Muzaffarpur, narrating the details of the circumstances in which Mr. G. Krishnaiya the then Collector of Gopalganj was killed. In the aforesaid First Information Report as many as 22 persons were arrayed in the column of accused persons including the petitioners. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against 41 accused persons and cited 64 persons as witnesses of the occurrence. Pursuant to that most of the accused persons, arrested in the instant case, were granted bail by this Court including the petitioners. It was further stated in the writ application that after the grant of bail to these petitioners, the State of Bihar went to Supreme Court praying for cancellation of their Bail in the special leave petition. The Hon ble Supreme Court vide its judgment and order dated 15-1-1996, cancelled the bail of one of the accused, Sri Anand Mohan but did not interfere with the order of the High Court with respect to these two petitioners. The Hon ble Supreme Court by the said order directed that the trial should commence within two months of the receipt of the order and further the trial Court was directed to record evidence of the witnesses on day to day basis so that the trial may be concluded expeditiously without interruption after its commencement. It was stated that, thereafter, all the 41 accused persons who have been charge sheeted except one Bhutkun Shukla, who was alleged to be main assailant and whose trial later was separated, presented themselves before the Court and the trial commenced. It is needless to mention here that Shri Anand Mohan whose bail was cancelled by the Hon ble Supreme Court, again moved the Supreme Court for grant of bail. The Hon ble Supreme Court gave a time frame to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial and if at all, the trial was not concluded by 22nd June, it was directed that he be released on bail. According to petitioners since by that time, only two of the prosecution witnesses were examined out of 64 witnesses of the chargesheet. It is to be noted that charges were framed on 6-5-1996 and the trial on day to day basis commenced from 20th May, 1996. The petitioners alleged in the writ petition that there was no attempt on the part of any one of the accused persons to prevent the speedy disposal of trial, nevertheless on account of enormity of the materials in the case diary and other circumstances, only three prosecution witnesses could be examined till 6-7-1996, when the High Court in its administrative side passed an order transferring the aforesaid trial from Muzaf