Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ram Autar & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - B No. 40610 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 12678 (1 August 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40610 of 06

Ram Awtar & others........Petitioners


State of U.P. & Others........Respondents

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri Narsingh Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Challenge in this writ petition has been made to the order dated 3rd July 2006 passed by the District Magistrate/ District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria dismissing the transfer application moved by the petitioners for transfer of the proceedings of revision from the Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation to some other Court of competent jurisdiction.

The alleged ground on which the transfer was sought, was that they had seen the respondents and their counsel talking to the Deputy Director of Consolidation in his chamber. The respondent no. 2 dismissed the transfer application on the ground that there is no material on record to substantiate the allegation made in the transfer application. Even before this Court except for making bald allegation no material has been brought on record to substantiate the allegations.

The transfer of proceedings from a Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be ordered so lightly merely on making allegation by a party seeking transfer without there being any material on record. If the transfer applications are allowed on mere asking of a party without there being any material on record, it will not only affect the moral of the Subordinate Court but will also open flood gate of transfer applications resulting into chaos.

In absence of any material on record, the respondent no. 2 has rightly rejected the transfer application filed by the petitioners. There appears to be no illegality in the impugned order.

The writ petition accordingly fails, and is dismissed.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.