CM (M) No.886/2010 Page 1 of 5 * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI CM (M) No.886/2010 & CM No.12193/2010 % Judgment reserved on: 16th July, 2010 Judgment delivered on: 19th July, 2010 Ms.Veena W/o Sh. Sudesh Choudhry R/o Qtr. No.521, Z Type Opp B D Estate Mkt., Timar Pur, Delhi-54 ….Petitioner. Through: Mr.Pawan Kumar, Advocate Versus (1) Archeological Survey of India Through its Superintending Archaeologist Safdurjang Tomb, New Delhi. (2) Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Through its Managing Director (3) Sh. Sanjeev Sharma Manager, Metro Station, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-54 (4) Sh. Sudershan, Manager, Property Development Cell (5) Sh. Devender Singh Assistant Revenue Inspector, (6) Sh. Vikas Kumar GM (Operation) (7) Sh. Sanjay Sanger @ Sanjeev Sanger S.I. Delhi Police deputed as Security Officer in DMRC CM (M) No.886/2010 Page 2 of 5 All defendants No.2 & 4 to 7 having offices at: DMRC Bhawan, Barakhambha Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. ….Respondents. Through: Nemo. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside of order dated 3.6.2006 passed by District Judge, Delhi, vide which application of petitioner for transfer of the suit pending before Sh. Pankaj Gupta, Additional District Judge, Delhi to any other Court, was dismissed. 2. The allegations made in Transfer Petition are that since the initiation of the suit before Sh. Pankaj Gupta, Additional District Judge, the conduct of learned Judge is such that petitioner has lost confidence to get justice from the said Court, CM (M) No.886/2010 Page 3 of 5 on the grounds that upon initiation of the suit on 17.3.2010, the Court, did not consider the urgency of the matter and listed the same for 28.4.2010. 3. Secondly, on 19.3.2010, the Court outrightly dismissed the preponement application filed by the petitioner. 4. Thirdly, on 15.5.2010, the Court on the hearing of two applications filed by the petitioner, dismissed the same and imposed heavy costs upon the petitioner. 5. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that jurisdiction of this Court under this article is limited. 6. In Mohammed Yusuf vs. Faij Mohammad and Ors., 2009 (1) SCALE 71, Supreme Court held; “The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution is limited. It could have set aside and orders passed by the Learned trial court and Revisional Court only on limited ground, namely, illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety”. 7. In Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani and Anr. Vs. Pratapsing Mohansing Pardesh Deceased through his Heirs and Legal representatives, JT 1995 (7) SC 400, Apex Court observed; “The High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.” CM (M) No.886/2010 Page 4 of 5 8. In view of the above principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it is to be seen as to whether present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable or not. 9. Relevant portion of impugned order read as under:- “Merely because the Learned Presiding Officer has not granted any relief in favour of the Petitioner, or that Learned Presiding Officer has dismissed the Misc. applications moved by the Petitioner-either for preponement of hearing or the application u/section 151 for restraining the defendant no.2 to participate in the arbitration proceedings already initiated in terms of the agreement between the parties, it does not mean that the Learned Presiding Officer has acted arbitrarily or with bias. I may mention that the orders dated 17th March, 19th March, 28th April and 15th May, 2010 are the judicial orders passed by the trial Court, she may take recourse to the remedy available to her under law. In the circumstances, there is nothing on record to suggest that the Learned Presiding Officer has proceeded with the case in a biased or prejudiced manner. Its is settled law that transfer from one Court to another should not be granted readily for any fancied notion of the petitioning litigant because of the reason that such transfer of a case from one judge to another in effect casts doubt on the integrity, competence and reputation of the concerned judge.” 10. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner ever challenged any of the Judicial orders passed by Sh. Pankaj Gupta, Additional District Judge. Merely, the Court has not granted any relief to the petitioner, is no ground to seek transfer from that Court to another. There is no illegality, irrationality or procedure impropriety in the impugned order. 11. Thus, I find no reason to disagree with the reasoning given by the learned District Judge. There is no merit or legal force in this petition. The same is most CM (M) No.886/2010 Page 5 of 5 bogus and frivolous one. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand). 12. Petitioner is directed to deposit the costs by way of cheque in the name of Registrar General of this Court, within four weeks from today. 13. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Trial Court. 14. List for compliance on 25th August, 2010. 19th July, 2010 V.B.GUPTA, J. mw