By the Court.—Heard Sri R. K. S. Chauhan, learned Advocate who appeared in support of this petition and learned State Counsel.

2. Prayer in this petition is for quashing the order dated 17.12.2009 (annexure No. 4 and 4-A to the writ petition) and a direction to the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. to transfer Revision No. 38 of 2009, Kuldeep Singh v. District Magistrate, Fatehpur to be heard and decided by some other authority and not by the authority before whom the matter is pending.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is having a mining lease and in its operation there is interference by the mafias who are having a push of the Minister in the Government, as stated in various paragraphs of the writ petition, and for the grievances petitioner has to file various writ petitions earlier.

4. It is further submitted that without any lawful justification petitioner’s mining lease has also been cancelled by order dated 17.12.2009 upon which petitioner preferred revision before the Special Secretary (Geology and Mines) under Rule 78 of the U.P. Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1963.

5. Although the revisions i.e. Revision No. 38 of 2009 and Revision No. 39 of 2009 are to be decided by the revisional forum but on various facts so stated in the writ petition, on account of influence/involvement of the concerned Minister the petitioner is not to get justice from those authorities and, therefore, the revisions may be directed to be shifted/decided by some other authority.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that mining lease of the petitioner has been cancelled and thus petitioner has to get a decision from the revisional authority. Revisions are pending. The charge is bias of the authority on account of influence of the concerned Minister, who is not party by name in this petition.

7. To accept the charge of bias, the first principle is that the person is to be party. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted and direction for transfer is given then that will amount to accept the charge of bias and that cannot be done in an ex-parte manner. Otherwise also this is all averment, certainly in strong words but that may not take place of the proof and thus by means of this writ petition the kind/nature of the allegation may not be in a position of investigation.

8. Even otherwise if the revisions are decided against the petitioner as and when the matter is taken up to the higher forum the allegation/charge if are correct they will remain as it is and they can always be stated at that time and thus at the intervening stage by taking note of the charges the forum so provided under the rules is not to be changed by this court.

9. There is no dispute about the fact that by the petitioner or at his behest about five-six petitions in respect to the same issue were filed before this Court and they all were disposed of by not accepting the petitioner’s contention. In some of the writ petitions serious observation against the petitioner is there.

10. In writ petition filed by the petitioner i.e. writ petition No. 55369 of 2009 dismissed on 3.11.2009 cost of Rs. 10,000/- has also been awarded.

11. In the writ petition No. 8326 of 2010 filed by Vijay Pal and Balvir Singh, this Court at various places made an observation that this is a proxy petition on behalf of Kuldeep Singh and thus finding it to be the mischief of Kuldeep Singh writ petition was dismissed by order dated 24.2.2010 by awarding cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

12. In view of these facts, this Court is to just observe that now it is for the petitioner to keep himself away from filing/indulging in misconceived and luxurious petitions rather to get a peaceful decision from the competent authority as provided under the Rules and then if the things goes against him to take up the matter to the higher forum.

13. This will help the petitioner in reaching a stage ahead rather to be moving round and round at the same place.

14. For deciding any kin