JAYANT PATEL, J.

(1) THE present petition is preferred by the petitioners seeking transfer of Sessions Case No. 152/02 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court No. 12, Ahmedabad. THE petitioners since had earlier approached before the Principal City Civil Judge for transfer of the said sessions cases under Sections 408 read with Section 409 of the Cr. P.C. and the learned Principal Sessions Judge declined the prayer for transfer by rejecting the application of the petitioners, the petitioners have also challenged the said order in the present petition.

(2) IN order to appreciate the grievance on the part of the petitioners herein, some factual background may be required and the same is as under :

The petitioners are either witnesses or victims of Sessions cases which are sought to be transferred. All such sessions cases pertain to communal riot incidents and it is the case of the petitioners that about 69 persons have lost their lives in the incident, therefore, their sentiments are attached with the conducting of the trial and they are desirous to see that the offenders are punished in accordance with law. After registration of FIR and investigation of the matter by the State Police, as per the direction of the Apex Court, the investigation was assigned to Special Investigation Team (hereinafter referred to as "SIT" for the sake of convenience) and thereafter, there was further investigation and charge-sheets have been filed and the matters are pending before the learned Sessions Judge. The Apex Court had issued various directions in the case of National Human Rights Commission v. State of Gujarat, reported at 2009 (6) SCC 767 : 2009 AIR SCW3049), which inter alia includes the direction for selection of the judicial officer to be nominated for conducting the trials such cases vide para 40(iv), relevant of which reads as under:

"It is imperative, considering the nature and sensitivity of these nominated cases, and the history of the entire litigation, that the senior judicial officer be appointed so that these trials can be concluded as soon as possible and in the most satisfactory manner. In order to ensure that all concerned have the highest degree of confidence in the system being put in place, it would be advisable if the Chief Justice of the High Court of Gujarat selects the judicial officers to be so nominated. The State of Gujarat has, in its suggestions, stated that it has no objection to constitution of such "Fast Track Courts" and has also suggested that this may be left to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court.

(3) IN view of the aforesaid direction issued by the Apex Court in the above referred decision, so far as the present cases are concerned, the then Hon'ble Chief Justice (as his Lordship then was) had selected the present judicial officer Shri B. U. Joshi to conduct the present sessions cases and it has been stated that the trial is being conducted on day-to-day basis and by now, when the matter was heard on 15-7-2010 by this Court, about 292 witnesses were already examined. It is at that stage, the question is required to be considered by us as to whether in exercise of the power of this Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of INdia read with the power under Sections 408 and 409 of Cr. P.C. whether such sessions cases should be transferred to another sessions Judge or not?

(4) THE grievance on the part of the petitioners is that certain behaviour and conduct of the judicial officer is such that the petitioners feel that the learned Sessions Judge is having bias against the victim and the witnesses and it is further case of the petitioners that such has transpired during the course of conducting the trial, therefore, they have the apprehension that they will not get justice, hence the prayer for transfer of the sessions cases to another judicial officer who may be in a position to conduct the sessions cases.

The petitioners further contend that when