IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 385 of 2011() ------------------------------------ OP.NO.75/2011 of DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER -------------------- PARAYIL VALAPPIL ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.ABOOBACKER, WARD NO.9, PONNANI MUNICIPALITY, ESWARAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.K.KHALEEMUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. N.A.JOSEPH, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.N.K.ANTONY, NEELANKAVIL HOUSE, PONNANI.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.PIN-679 577. 2. LDF CONVENER,WARD NO.20, PONNANI MUNICIPALITY, EZHUVATHIRUTHY AMSOM THAYYANGAD DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.PIN-679 577 3. SATHEESAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN, KOTHAMBATH HOUSE, EZHUVATHIRUTHY AMSOM THAYYANGAD DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.PIN-679 557. 4. T.P.AJITH KUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.KESAVAN, THATTA PARAMBIL HOUSE, EZHUVATHIRUTHY AMSOM THAYYANGAD DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.PIN-679 557. 5. PRINTER AND PUBLISHER, DESABHMANI DAILY, MALAPPURAM.PIN-676 505. 6. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. PARAMESWARAN, VYRANALLOOR HOUSE, NAYARANGADI, EZHUVATHIRUTHY AMSOM THAYYANGAD DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.PIN-679 557. 7. CHANDRASEKHARAN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.APPU, KOTTUNGAL HOUSE, EZHUVATHIRUTHY AMSOM THAYYANGAD DESOM, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.PIN-679 557. 8. RETURNING OFFICER, PONNANI MUNICIPALITY, ASSISTNT FOREST CONSERVATOR, SOCIAL FORESTRY, MALAPPURAM.PIN-676 505. BY THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts TP(C)NO.385/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX A1 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/08/2011 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT,MANJERI VIDE ORIGINAL PETITION(TRANSFER) NO.75/2011. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Tr.P(C) No.385 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 14th day of November, 2011 O R D E R First respondent in O.P(Ele.) No.23 of 2010 of the court of learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Ponnani is the petitioner before me, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Judge, Manjeri in O.P (Tr.) No.75 of 2011 refusing to transfer the case from the said court to to the Munsiff's Court, Tirur or any other court in the District. Grievance of petitioner is that first respondent who is challenging the election of petitioner is a lawyer practicing in the court of learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Ponnani for the last several years and in the circumstances petitioner feels apprehensive about result of the election petition. It is also stated that petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to take necessary steps including an opportunity to raise maintainability of the election petition. It is stated that petitioner got notice to appear in court on 22.12.2010, petitioner requested time to file counter, request was declined and the case was posted for evidence on 11.4.2011. On that day petitioner filed objection with I.A. No.420 of 2011 to receive the same. That request was Tr.P(C) No.385 of 2011 -: 2 :- allowed on payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- payable to the first respondent. According to the petitioner, on the same day proof affidavit of first respondent was accepted and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked and the case was adjourned to 12.04.2011. From the above conduct of learned Munsiff, petitioner is apprehensive of the result of the election petition. Learned counsel has made a fervent plea that the case may be transferred from the court of learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Ponnani. 2. I am not inclined to think that merely for the reason that first respondent happens to be a practicing lawyer of the same court, the case must be transferred. I must also bear in mind that such orders will cast a stigma on the impartiality of the officer concerned and his ability to decide the case on merit, no matter, one of the parties is a practicing lawyer of the court. I must bear in mind that learned Munsiff has not expressed any difficulty to try the case for the reason that one of the parties happens to be a member of the local Bar. Reasons stated are not sufficient to order transfer. It is also seen that learned District Judge disposed of the transfer petition on 31.08.2011, a copy of the order was applied for only on 12.09.2011 and though it was received on 16.09.2011 this petition is filed only on Tr.P(C) No.385 of 2011 -: 3 :- 11.11.2011. There is no reason to think that petitioner will not get a fair trial and a decision on the merit of the case. Transfer Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv