Allegations of bias against a Presiding Officer must be substantiated with specific evidence; mere suspicion is insufficient to justify a transfer of case.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Heard Shri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri U. S. Sahai, learned counsel for the private respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich whereby the application for transfer filed under Rule 65(1-A) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 has been dismissed.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent no.3 while considering the petition before him by his acts and manner has given an apprehension that the petitioner would not get justice from the said court and for the said reason the petitioner had moved an application for transfer which has been rejected on the ground that even earlier the petitioner had moved a transfer application which was rejected and the petitioner is attempting to delay the proceedings by making repeated applications.

4. It is urged that in the transfer application, a copy of which has been brought on record as annexure no.8, it was stated that a request for oral adjournment was made before the court concerned which was not allowed by the court where after request in writing was made for postponement of the hearing which was also not accepted by the court and in such circumstances the transfer application was moved. The petitioner had also filed a supplementary-affidavit bringing on record the earlier application for transfer moved by the petitioner as well as its order and the same is taken on record.

5. It has also been urged by the counsel for the petitioner that there are several petitions pending between the parties and as such it will be appropriate if all the matters are heard by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation/District Magistrate Bahraich himself rather than the court of Deputy Director of Consolidation against whom the transfer application was moved.

6. Learned counsel for the private respondent has submitted that no party can claim to get the matter decided from any one particular court. It is thus urged that the petitioner is in the habit of making repeated applications only to delay the proceedings and in such circumstances the transfer application which has been rejected does not suffer from any error which may persuade this Court to entertain the present application which is otherwise liable to be rejected.

7. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record.

8. It will be noticed that in so far as the transfer application is concerned, it is alleged that the court concerned had passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo. The matter was fixed for hearing on the application for recall of the order granting the interim order and on the given date the senior counsel for the petitioner was out of station and his junior had made a oral request for an adjournment which was not accepted nor the court was inclined to grant any time and despite a written application moved but it was not accepted.

9. It is alleged that the Court remarked that he had heard the submission of the other parties and appropriate order would be passed. It has also been stated in the application that the private respondent had openly claimed that he had an understanding with the Presiding Officer who has assured that the interim order would be vacated and the mannerism of the Presiding Officer is such that it created a doubt in the mind of the petitioner that he shall not get justice from the said court.

10. This Court has perused the said application and finds that the allegations are completely bald, vague and the said application apparently as brought before this Court does not appear to be supported by an affidavit. Even otherwise, if the application annexure no.8 is compared with the application earlier moved by the petitioner dated 12.01.2024 which has been brought on record as annexu