JHINNU Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri N. U. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and perused the record. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 18.9.2012 (Annexure No.1) passed by opposite party no.1/Jt. Director of Consolidation, Indra Bhawan, Lucknow by which the transfer application has been rejected. Shri N.U.Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order submits that the petitioner has no faith in the said officer, as such? there is apprehension not to get justice from the said officer because the said officer is under the influence of the contesting respondent. Hence, on the said ground, the present writ petition has been filed and argued for redressal of their grievances.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and perused the record. Needless to mention herein that the power as provided under Rule 65 (1-A) of the Rule for transferring the matter from one court to another court by the competent authority in the consolidation proceedings is to be decided and adjudicated on the same principles and guidelines as provided under Section 24 CPC.

(3.) FURTHER , the ground which has been taken by the petitioner for transferring the matter in question is contrary to the law as laid down by this Court in the Case of Masroor Vs. District Judge, Shahjahanpur and others, 2002 (93) RD 563, Zohra Begum ( Smt.) and others Vs. VIIth ADJ Bareilly and another decided on 20 April, 2000 and M/s Moder hardwares and others Vs. prescribed Authority, Dehradun and others decided on July,26,1990. Thus,? I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 18.9.2012 which is under challenge in the present writ petition, as such, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.