ORDER : The petitioners have filed these Transfer Petitions praying that Writ Petitions Nos. 4037 & 4038/82 pending in the High Court of Delhi may be withdrawn from the High Court and either be tried and disposed of by this Court or be transferred to another High Court in the ends of justice. It is not necessary for the purpose of these Transfer Petitions to set out the facts giving rise to the Writ Petitions but it will be sufficient to state that by the Writ Petitions the petitioners sought to challenge certain orders made by the Collector of Customs directing confiscation of the consignments of industrial coconut oil imported by the petitioners and imposing a fine of Rs. 5 crores in respect of the various bills of entry covering these consignments. The Writ Petitions have had a chequered career in the High Court of Delhi and in order to appreciate the orders made by us from time to time, it is necessary to refer briefly to the history of the Writ Petitions in the High Court of Delhi. 2. The Writ Petitions first came up for admission before Mr. Justice N.N. Goswami who was the Vacation Judge at the material time. The learned Judge directed that the Writ Petitions may be listed before a Division Bench 011 the reopening of the High Court after the vacation. The grievance of the petitioners was that the Writ Petitions were of an urgent nature because heavy demurrage at the rate of Rs. 50,000/-per day was being incurred in respect of the consignments and yet the Writ Petitions were not taken up for admission by the learned Judge but were directed to be placed before a Division Bench after the vacation. The writ petitions thereafter came up for admission before a Division Bench comprising of Mr. Justice D. K. Kapur and Mr. Justice Ranganathan on 6th January, 1983 when the Division Bench issued notices to the respondents to show cause why the writ petitions should not be admitted. Similar notices were also issued to the respondents on the applications for stay in the writ petitions. These notices were made returnable on 18th January, 1983 and they were served on the respondents on different dates between 7th and 10th January, 1983. Similar notices were also issued to the respondents on the applications for stay in the writ petitions. These notices were made returnable on 18th January, 1983 and they were served on the respondents on different dates between 7th and 10th January, 1983. The respondents did not file any counter affidavit in reply to the writ petitions but opposed the issuance of rule nisi and grant of stay. The Division Bench however, after hearing the respondents issued rule nisi but refused to stay the operation of the impugned orders. The Division Bench directed expeditious disposal of the writ petitions and fixed a time schedule for filing the counter affidavit and the affidavit in rejoinder. Since the stay was refused, the petitioners deposited a sum of Rs. 5 crores representing the penalty imposed upon them. It appears that the respondents thereafter made an application challenging the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petitions and also contending that the writ petitions were not maintainable since alternative remedy was available to the petitioners. Mr. Justice Wad before whom the writ petitions came up for hearing, however, directed that the respondents must file a counter affidavit in reply to the entire petition and the question whether the hearing should be restricted only to the preliminary objections or the entire writ petitions should be heard on merits, would be decided on 21st February 1983. 3. The writ petitions thereafter came up for hearing before Mr. Justice Awad Bihari who heard the writ petitions for four days in the first week of March, 1983. On 8th March, 1983, however, Mr. D.P. Wadhwa, as he then was, representing the respondents, met with an accident necessitating an adjournment of the writ petitions. Mr. Justice Awad Bihari thereupon adjourned the writ petitions and in spite of having heard the writ petitions for four days, directed that for personal reasons he would not like to hear the writ petitions and that the writ petitions may be listed before some other learned Judge. The writ petitions then came up for hearing before Mr. Justice H.L. Anand who heard the writ petitions for 14 days but ultimately at the end of 14 days hearing, he delivered a judgment making various observations relating to totally extraneous matters which were not on -record. The writ petitions then came up for hearing before Mr. Justice H.L. Anand who heard the writ petitions for 14 days but ultimately at the end of 14 days hearing, he delivered a judgment making various observations relating to totally extraneous matters which were not on -record. The learned Judge made reference to "the controversial background of the petitioners" $$and observed that having regard to various matters referred to by him in the judgment, it might not be possible to keep his mind free from some of those matters which on one reckoning may appear to be extraneous to the real questions in controversy before him. The learned Judge also felt that the writ petitions gave rise to important and difficult questions and having regard to all the circumstances he thought it would be desirable that the writ petitions are heard by a larger Bench preferably a full Bench and he suggested that "in view of the controversy that the petitioners i have generated elsewhere as indeed in the corridors of this Court", the writ petitions may be placed before the full Court for the constitution of the Bench so as to save unnecessary embarassment to the Hon'ble Chief Justice. This order was made by the learned Judge 29th July, 1984. 4. The writ petitions were thereafter placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice who passed a specific order stating that the matter may be placed "before a Division Bench either member of which has not dealt with the case of the petitioners in recent times. The writ petitions then came up for hearing before a Division Bench consisting of Mr. Justice S.S. Chadha and Mr. Justice H.C. Goel on 3rd September 1983 when they adjourned the matter to 12th October 1983 for final hearing. The record, according to the petitioners, shows that on the next day i. e. 9th September 1983 Mr. Justice H.C. Goel called for a certified copy of the judgment of Mr. Justice H.L. Anand. The judgment of Mr. Justice H. L. Anand was presumably delivered to Mr. Justice H.C. Goel. What happened thereafter was that on 12th October 1983 when the writ petitions came up for hearing, Mr. Justice H.C. Goel declined to hear the writ petitions. The writ petitions were then placed before a specially constituted Division Bench consisting of Mr, Justice S.S. Chadha and Mr. Justice H. L. Anand was presumably delivered to Mr. Justice H.C. Goel. What happened thereafter was that on 12th October 1983 when the writ petitions came up for hearing, Mr. Justice H.C. Goel declined to hear the writ petitions. The writ petitions were then placed before a specially constituted Division Bench consisting of Mr, Justice S.S. Chadha and Mr. Justice Talwar and they came up for hearing before this Division Bench on 24th October 1983. The writ petitions were adjourned by the Division Bench first to 21st October 1983 and then to 10th January 1984 and ultimately they came up for hearing on 11th January 1984. On that day the Division Bench declined to take up the writ petitions for hearing since they thought it would not be possible for them to hear the writ petitions because Mr. Justice S.S. Chadha was sitting singly to dispose of expedited matters while Mr. Justice Talwar was sitting in another Bench with the Chief Justice. The result was that the matter was once again referred to the Chief Justice who ordered that the writ petitions may be placed for hearing on the Board of another Division Bench consisting of Mr. Justice Sachar and Mrs. Justice Leela Seth. The writ petitions then came up for hearing before this Division Bench on 16th January 1984 but on that day, no directions for final hearing could be given and the writ petitions were adjourned to 6th February 1984 for directions. Since the writ petitions were, according to the petitioners, not being heard and we were being transferred from one Bench to another despite the fact that Mr. Justice H.L. Anand had observed that appropriate directions were required to be given for hearing the writ petitions at the earliest possible opportunity, the petitioners filed the present Transfer Petitions for transferring the writ petitions either to some other High Court or to this Court. 5. There are two principal grounds on which Mr. Jethmalani, learned counsel for the petitioners, has sought the transfer of the writ petitions from the Delhi High Court. The first ground is that by reason of the observations made in the judgment of Mr. 5. There are two principal grounds on which Mr. Jethmalani, learned counsel for the petitioners, has sought the transfer of the writ petitions from the Delhi High Court. The first ground is that by reason of the observations made in the judgment of Mr. Justice H.L. Anand and the events which have transpired, the petitioners have a reasonable apprehension that they will not get fair and impartial justice from the High Court of Delhi in the writ petitions and other matters of theirs pending before that High Court. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that Mr. Justice H.L. Anand, a senior learned Judge of the High Court, has made "sweeping remarks and generalised observations about the alleged antecedents and conduct of the petitioner company and its office bearers and about the effect and influence of the said alleged antecedents and conduct on the functioning of the Delhi High Court as such" and suggested that the petitioners have "got embroiled of their own accord or in spite of their own inclination to the contrary, in certain extraneous controversies" and these observations made by the learned Judge are "most likely to create a belief in the minds of other Hon'ble Judges about the conduct of the petitioners." Mr. Jethmalani, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has also urged that the observations made by Mr. Justice H.L. Anand that a full Bench should be constituted by the whole court and not by the Chief Justice alone in order to save him from embarassment, also suggest how difficult it is for any single Judge or a Division Bench to hear and dispose of the matters of the petitioners in an uninfluenced manner. It is submitted that under the circumstances the petitioners reasonably apprehend that it will not be possible for them to get fair and impartial trial of their cases from the High Court of Delhi and hence the writ petitions should be transferred from the Delhi High Court to any other High Court or to this Court. The second ground on which Mr. Jethmalani seeks the transfer of the writ petitions is that though a large sum of about Rs. 5 crores belonging to the petitioner is held up by reason of the orders impugned in the writ petitions and it was pertinently observed, by Mr. The second ground on which Mr. Jethmalani seeks the transfer of the writ petitions is that though a large sum of about Rs. 5 crores belonging to the petitioner is held up by reason of the orders impugned in the writ petitions and it was pertinently observed, by Mr. Justice H.L. Anand that the writ petitions deserve to be disposed of at an early date they are not being heard expeditiously and one Judge of the High Court stated after hearing the writ petition for four days that he would not, for personal reasons, hear the writ petitions, another Judge, after a hearing lasting 14 days, referred the writ petitions to a full Bench to be constituted by the full Court, a third Judge declined to hear the writ petitions after they had been fixed for hearing, a Division Bench expressed its inability to take up the matter after fixing it for hearing on account of exigencies of work and a yet another Division Bench adjourned the matter twice without giving directions in regard to the date of hearing of the writ petitions. It is, therefore, urged on behalf of the petitioners that in order to ensure expeditious disposal of the writ petitions, they should be transferred to some other High Court or to this Court. 6. We are not impressed by the first ground urged by Mr. Jethmalani on behalf of the petitioners. It is true that certain observations were made by Mr. Justice H. L. Anand in the judgment delivered by him on 29th July 1983. These observations were obviously not based on any record before the learned Judge and they referred to extraneous matter drawn either from what the learned Judge might have heard from some source or sources or from whisperings in the corridors of the Court and they undoubtedly had the effect of showing the petitioners as a centre of controversy. But these observations, unfortunate though they be, cannot justifiably lead to any reasonable apprehension on the part of the petitioners that they will not get fair and impartial justice at the hands of any Judge of the Delhi High Court. But these observations, unfortunate though they be, cannot justifiably lead to any reasonable apprehension on the part of the petitioners that they will not get fair and impartial justice at the hands of any Judge of the Delhi High Court. It is only if the petitioners can satisfy us that their reasonable apprehension of not being able to get fair and impartial justice extends by and large to most Judges of the Delhi High Court that we can be asked to transfer the writ petitions from the Delhi High Court to any other High Court or to this Court. There are a number of Judges in the Delhi High Court and it cannot possibly be said that every Judge of the Delhi High Court would have a prejudice or bias against the petitioners by reason of what has been stated in the judgment of Mr. Justice H.L. Anand. The Judges of the High Court possess a highly trained judicial mind with an extremely honest intellectual approach and we have no doubt that if any Judge of the High Court feels that he may not be able, even remotely, to do justice to the petitioners by reason of any prejudice or bias which may be lurking in his mind against the petitioners, he will not take up the writ petitions like Justices H.L. Anand, Awadh Bihari and H.C. Goel. We do not, therefore, see any justification for the petitioners to reasonably apprehend that they will not get fair and impartial justice from the Delhi High Court. We have been informed that the writ petitions arc now going to be heard by a Division Bench consisting of Mr. Justice Sachar and Mr. Justice Wad and they have themselves fixed the writ petitions for hearing on 23rd August 1984. We have no doubt in our mind, and we are firmly of the view that there can be no reasonable apprehension to the contrary in the mind of the petitioners, that they will get fair and impartial justice at the hands of this Division Bench. 7. But when these Transfer Petitions were first argued before us on 16th July 1984 we were impressed by the argument urged on behalf of the petitioners that in order to secure expeditious disposal of the writ petitions it was necessary to transfer them from the Delhi High Court to some other High Court. 7. But when these Transfer Petitions were first argued before us on 16th July 1984 we were impressed by the argument urged on behalf of the petitioners that in order to secure expeditious disposal of the writ petitions it was necessary to transfer them from the Delhi High Court to some other High Court. The movement of the writ petitions from one Bench to another with one Judge referring them to a full Bench to be constituted by the full Court after hearing the writ petitions for 14 days, another judge hearing the writ petitions for four days and then declining to take them up, a third Judge declining to hear the writ petitions, a Division Bench not being able to take up the writ petitions on account of exigencies of work and yet another Division Bench twice adjourning the writ petitions without giving directions, led us to form the impression that the petitioners were not getting expeditious hearing of the writ petitions. We did not know at that time that the writ petitions were fixed before a Division Bench consisting of Mr. Justice Sachar and Mr. Justice Wad on 19th July 1984 for giving directions in regard to the date of hearing. We, therefore, made an order on 16th July 1984 to the following effect : "Without expressing any opinion on the question as to whether a proper ground for transfer has been made out and only with a view to securing expeditious disposal of the writ petitions, we direct that writ petitions nos. 4037-38/84 pending in the Delhi High Court be transferred to the Rajasthan High Court. We would request the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court to see that these writ petitions are disposed of at an early date by a Division Bench of that High Court." 8. It will be seen that the only ground on which we made the order of transfer on 16th July 1984 was with a view to securing expeditious disposal of the writ petitions. That was constitutionally permissible to us to do, since we have the undoubted power to transfer a case from one High Court to another for the ends of justice and it is definitely one of the ends of justice to secure expeditious disposal of a case. That was constitutionally permissible to us to do, since we have the undoubted power to transfer a case from one High Court to another for the ends of justice and it is definitely one of the ends of justice to secure expeditious disposal of a case. But after we had made the order for transfer of the writ petitions, we came to learn that the writ petitions had been fixed before a Division Bench of Mr. Justice Sachar and Mr. Justice Wad for directions on 19th July 1984 and if that was so, then obviously there would be no justification for transfer of the writ petitions from the Delhi High Court because a mere request to that Division Bench to take up the writ petitions for hearing would be sufficient to ensure expeditious disposal of the writ petitions, particularly since Mr. Justice Sachar while silting with Mrs. Justice Leela Seth had not expressed his disinclination to take up the writ petitions or hearing and so also Mr. Justice Wad had not declined to hear the writ petitions. In fact it was Mr. Justice Wad who had given direction for filing a counter affidavit in reply to the entire petitions. 9. We, therefore, gave notice to the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties, at 10.30 a.m. on 23rd July 1984 and requested them to remain present at 2 p.m. on the same day and on the same day, at 2 p.m., we pointed out to the parties that at the time when we made our Order of transfer dated 16th July 1984 we were not informed that the writ petitions had been fixed before the Division Bench of Mr, Justice Sachar and Mr. Justice Wad on 19th July 1984 for giving directions in regard to the fixation of the date of hearing and we accordingly passed an order directing that the transfer order made by us shall not be implemented until we rehear the matter and meanwhile, if the case comes up for hearing before the Division Bench, it may proceed on the basis that the order of transfer has not been made and the transfer petitions would be reheard on 30th July, 1984. 10. 10. We thereafter heard the Transfer petitions on 30th July, 1984 and after hearing the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties once again, we, for reasons we have already given, reach the same conclusion that there is no justification for the petitioners to entertain any reasonable apprehension that they will not get fair and impartial justice from the Delhi High Court and so far as the ground of expeditious disposal of the writ petitions is concerned we take the view that this ground is also not well founded. We are informed by the learned advocates appearing for the parties that the Division Bench of Mr. Justice Sachar and Mr. Justice Wad has fixed the hearing of the writ petitions before it on 23rd August, 1984 and since the Division Bench has decided to hear the writ petitions on 23rd August, 1984 there is no need to transfer them to another High Court, as such a transfer would in the circumstances defeat rather than promote the object of securing expeditious disposal of the writ petitions. 11. When the Transfer Petitions were argued before us on 30th July, 1984, Mr. Jethmalani on behalf of the petitioners as also the learned Attorney General on behalf of the respondents drew our attention to two articles written by Mr' Krishan Mahajan, Legal Correspondent of the Hindustan Times, on 23rd July, 1984 and 30th July, 1984. Mr. Jethmalani strongly urged and in this submission he was supported by the learned Attorney General, that some of the statements contained in these two articles amounted to contempt of court. But in the present proceedings we are not concerned with the inquiry whether any statements contained in these two articles amount to contempt of court or not. We are concerned in these proceedings only with the question whether the writ petitions should be transferred or not. We may point out that our attention was also invited to certain observations made in these two articles in regard to the conduct of the learned Attorney General and Mr. Jethmalani in these proceedings, suggesting that the fact of the writ petitions being already fixed before the Division Bench of Mr. Justice Sachar and Mr. Justice Wad for hearing on 19th July, 1984 was kept back from the Court by these two learned advocates. Jethmalani in these proceedings, suggesting that the fact of the writ petitions being already fixed before the Division Bench of Mr. Justice Sachar and Mr. Justice Wad for hearing on 19th July, 1984 was kept back from the Court by these two learned advocates. This suggestion cast a serious aspersions on the character and integrity of the learned Attorney General and Mr. Jethmalani and both of them expressed their strong resentment against the same. Now it is true that at the time when the order of transfer was made by us on 16th July, 1984 we were not aware that the writ petitions had been fixed before the Division Bench of Mr. Justice Sachar and Mr. Justice Wad for directions on 19th July 1984. If this fact had been known to us we would certainly not have made the order of transfer dated 16th July, 1984, because, as pointed out above, we would have merely requested the Division Bench to fix a very early date of hearing and to dispose of the writ petitions with utmost despatch. But from this circumstance alone, it would not be right or proper to jump to the conclusion, that this fact was consciously or deliberately suppressed or kept back from the Court either by the learned Attorney General or by Mr. Jethmalani. It is indeed impossible to conceive that either of these two learned advocates would consciously or deliberately suppress or keep back from the Court any relevant fact or information, whatever be the consequence of bringing such fact or information to the notice of the Court. Having given our anxious consideration to all the facts and circumstances placed before us we have absolutely no doubt in our mind that neither the learned Attorney General nor Mr. Jethmalani can be accused of deliberately or consciously with-holding any relevant fact or information from the Court and any aspersions cast on them must be regarded as unjustified. 12. We accordingly dismiss the Transfer Petitions with no order as to costs.