HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Transfer Petitionmr.) 03(20Q7 PETITIONERS 1. Usha ’I‘n’pathi W/o Shri Chaluadhar Tripathi, aged about (at present) 34 yeam. 2. Vishesh 'I‘ripathi, (Minor) thmugh his natuml guaniian/mother Usha ’I‘Iipathi, aged about 34 years, ‘ Both are, residents of Ramanujganj Road, Ambikapur, Dismict-SuxgujqCG) Verm RESPONDENT Chakxadhar ’I‘ripathi s/ a ghri Rajkumar ' Tripatln‘, aged about 33 years, R/o Shantipara Batauli, Emporaxy R/o (as mentioned in the order sheets) house of Santosh Pandey, behind Women’s Hospital, Darripara, Ambikapur at present R/ o MohallanGangapur Namnakala of Ambikapur, Distn'ct— Swguja(CG) Appearance: . Shri Manoj Mishm, counsel for the petitioners, ORAL ORDER (15.06.2007) { . d C SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J , Heard on admission This peuuon has been me for transfer of MJC ' No 34/2006 pendmg before the Fannly Coult Ambakapur ‘ It 1s stated that the said matter ls under Secuon 125 r P C Learned counsel for the petttloners argues that the Fmly Court had dISmJssed the aforesald case m default on 5 9 2006 on account of absence of the. peuuoners and When,later on, the petitioners appeamkm the same day and moved an application for 1ts restorahon, 1t was dlsposed 01f on 13 4 2007 and m thJs manner, accordmg to lealned counsel tor the etiuoners, a p n 2 mamas/mm inortlinate delay was caused by the Family Court in disposal of the said applicau‘on, which renders appmhension in tha mind of > petitioners that they will not get justice mm the said Court. ' I have heard learned counsel for the peu‘u'oners at length and have also gone through the mcords of the transfer petition. The law with regaxd to transfer of cases is well settled. The Apex Court held in the matter of Gurucharan Bass Chadha - Vs~ State of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 S.C. 1418 that a case is tiansferred if there is a maSOnable apprehension on the part ofa party to a case that justice will not be done. The Apex Court said that a peu‘tioner is not Iequired to demonstrate that justice will inevitably ”fail. He is entitled to a transfer if he shows c' nmstances hum which it can be inferxed that he entertains an appiehension and that it is masonable in the ciwnmstances alleged. The Apex Court further held that it is one of the principles of the adminisnation ofjustice that justice should not only he done but it should be seen to be done. However, a mere allegation that there is apprehensm‘n that justice will not be , done in a given case does not sufhce. The Court has further to see whether the apprehension is reasonable or not. The Apex Court also said that to judge of the reasonableness of the apprehension the state of the mind of the person who entertains» the apprehension is no doubt relevant but that is not all. The apprehension must not only be entertained, but must appear to the Court to be a reasonable apprehension. It was further held by the Apex Court in the matter ofMrs. Maueka Surya Gandhi and v another —Vs- Miss Rani Jethmalaui, AIR 1979 S.C. 468 that assurance of a Eir trial is he hrst imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a arty or easy availability of legal services or like mini-mievance. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperiling, hum the point of view of public jush‘ce and its attendant ' t p T.P.Cr.03l200 b to exercise its powcr enviromncnt, is necessitous if the Court mun case to case. The of tmnsfer. This is the cardinal principle although the citeumstances may be myriad and va1y Apex Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, said that the grounds for the transfer have to be tested on this touch- stone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the tight to choose any Court having jun'sdiction and the tried. It further said that even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh If we apply the above pn'ncisles in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it does not. appear to me that the apprehension entertained by the petitioners is genuine and against him should be accused cannot dictate where the case the circumstances. he same can be neated as a ground hom the said Court. MJC is made out on the gound raised by the petitioners. The petition has no merit and the motion stage itself. ‘, case for nansfer of the In the opinion of thE' Couxt, no same is aismissed at the t for transfer of the case ,,4__ .i V sdl- SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Judge I, ,7,,hh t j)“ E! I