CR No.1079 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1079 of 2011. Decided on: March 21, 2011. Executive Engineer, Construction Division No.16, now amalgamated in Construction Division No.17, Karnala and another. .. Petitioners VERSUS M/s Chandi Construction Company Ltd., .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Kartar Singh, DAG., Haryana, for the appellants. Mr.Satish Goel, Advocate, for the respondent. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) This revision petition has been preferred by the State against the order dated 16.11.2010, by virtue of which the District Judge, Karnal, exercising the powers to transfer proceedings . . . 1 CR No.1079 of 2011 has exercised her discretion to transfer the review petition in an Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, filed by the State transferring the same from the Court of one Additional District Judge to the Court of another Additional District Judge, as the respondent construction company has moved an application for transfer of the proceedings. It has been contended by the counsel for the petitioners-State that person who has been contesting the review petition is not competent to contest the same on behalf of the Company and that there is no ground for transfer of review petition from one Court to another Court. After hearing the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondent, I am of the opinion that discretionary order passed by the District Judge cannot be interfered in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Constitution of India as it has not been shown that the discretion has been exercised illegally. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the District Judge has not expressed any opinion regarding the allegations and apprehensions of the respondent as mentioned in the transfer application but adopting the principle that justice should not only be done but appear to have been done, the proceedings have been transferred. After going through the order, I do not find any ground to interfere in the discretionary order. . . . 2 CR No.1079 of 2011 Dismissed. However, a direction is issued to the Court concerned to dispose of the review application expeditiously preferably within a period of 3 months after the receipt of a copy of this order. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE March 21, 2011. rka . . . 3