JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J.—This application has been filed by Shri Vidya Sagar Sood for transfer of his case, i. e,, C, S. No. 7-R/10/95/88 titled Vidya Sagar v. State of H, P. and others; which is pending in the Court of the learned District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur to some other Court of District Judge in Himachal Pradesh. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State-respondent No. 1, as well as Shri R. L. Sood for respondents No, 2 and 3 have been heard at length. The comments of the Presiding Officer of the Court of District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur which were tailed for have also been perused. The main ground for transferring the case as stated in the transfer petition and as also urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the learned District Judge has already expressed an opinion on the merits of the case, and therefore, there is a clear apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that justice will not be done to him by that Court. It has been vehemently argued that the learned District Judge had started discussing the merits of the case in open Court with the learned Counsel representing the plaintiff-petitioner there as well as the District Attorney who is in-charge of the case on behalf of the defendants/respondents, However, a perusal of the comments of the learned District Judge, Kinnaur indicates otherwise. 3. For facility of reference, paras No. (ii) and (iii) of the comments of t he learned District Judge are reproduced here below : "(ii) That the contents of para 2 of the application are admitted to the extent that the case was fixed for the evidence of the defendants on 10-4-1996 before this court and rest of the contents are denied as false. The case was taken up for the recording of evidence on 10-4-1996 and the plaintiff has produced Sh. R. M. Gupta, learned Counsel to conduct his case. The learned District Attorney has prayed time to examine his witnesses as he was busy in other State cases. Moreover, the State witnesses were not present and they have made request through District Attorney that they will be reaching the Court by 12 noon. R. M. Gupta, learned Counsel to conduct his case. The learned District Attorney has prayed time to examine his witnesses as he was busy in other State cases. Moreover, the State witnesses were not present and they have made request through District Attorney that they will be reaching the Court by 12 noon. It is however, admitted that there was a discussion about the Inner Line Permit and its procedure which was discussed with the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff and the District Attorney, There was no argument by the learned District Attorney as alleged except that the District Attorney has stated that his request for Inner-Line Permit was rejected on the basis of the report submitted by Superintendent of Police, Kangra. It is absolutely wrong that the Court has agreed with the argument and expressed the opinion that plaintiff has no case at all against the Government. There was no question of comparing the applicant with the Punjab terrorist. There was no discussion about the character antecedent of the applicant as it was not involved in the Civil Suit. It is absolutely wrong that the Court has uttered anything about the High Court order or stated that the High Court can pass any order but I have to see what I have to do. Rest of the para is also denied for want of knowledge. It is submitted that when the case was taken up for recording the evidence of the defendants witness the applicant has moved two applications for the transfer of the case on 10-4-1996. One application was filed in Hindi wherein the applicant has only mentioned that he want to get this case transferred to some other Court and request to stay the proceedings. Thereafter another application in English was filed by the applicant on the same day supported by an affidavit wherein he has only mentioned that he has lost confidence in the Court and has apprehension that he may not get fair trial and prayed time to get the case transferred Both the applications are on the court file. From the perusal of both the applications there are no allegations as mentioned by the applicant in his application for transfer. From the perusal of both the applications there are no allegations as mentioned by the applicant in his application for transfer. (iii) That the contents of para 3 of the application are admitted to the extent that the applicant has filed two applications for the transfer of the case and rest of the contents are absolutely false. The proceedings in the case was stayed immediately when he moved the applications as is clear from the order-sheet. The petitioner was given 15 days time to get necessary stay order from the competent Court. It is submitted that the allegations contained in the para are afterthought and has only been levelled to get the case transferred." 4. It is clear from the above comments that the learned District Judge, Kinnaur has not pre-judged the merits of the case at all. Rather be has fairly admitted in his comments that there was a discussion about the inner line permit and its procedure which was discussed with the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff and the District Attorney At the same time, he has categorically denied that the Court agreed with the argument and expressed the opinion that the plaintiff has no case at all against the Government. He has also denied that the character or antecedents of the plaintiff were ever discussed, or that he was compared with a Punjab terrorist. It is manifest therefore that the apprehension of the petitioner is misplaced and, this Court is satisfied that there is no bias against him in the mind of the learned Presiding Officer of the Court of District Judge, Kinnaur. 5. Faced with this situation, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the bias of the lower Court is palpable from the fact that when the petitioner filed the first application for transfer before the learned Presiding Officer, the latter flared up and rebuked the petitioner and also used harsh language. In this connection, he has invited the attention of the Court to para 3 of the transfer application. 6. In this connection, he has invited the attention of the Court to para 3 of the transfer application. 6. As regards this plea raised on behalf of the petitioner, in para 3 of the comments of the learned Presiding Officer of the Court of District Judge, Kinnaur, it has been stated that the applicant, i. e., the present petitioner had filed two applications for the transfer of the case, and the proceedings in the case were stayed immediately as is clear from the order-sheet. It is further mentioned therein that the petitioner was given 15 days time to get necessary stay order from the competent Court. 7. As regards the behaviour of the learned Presiding Officer towards the petitioner, the allegations in para 3 of the petition have been denied as absolutely false. 8. Here again, the fairness of the learned Presiding Officer is evident from the fact that he has given his comments as per the record of the case, for example, whereas in the transfer application, reference has been made only to one application having been filed before him for staying the proceedings, in the comments it is mentioned that two applications have been filed, and the proceedings in the case were stayed immediately as is clear from the order-sheet. There is no reason for this Court to doubt the statement of facts as given in the comments of the learned Presiding Officer, as the same is based on the record. Merely on the ipsi dixit of the petitioner, it is not discernible from the circumstances of the case, that the Presiding Officer of the learned lower Court has any bias against him, or has prejudged his case on merits. 9. To merely say that there is apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that he will not get justice in his case from the lower Court is not enough. That apprehension has to be supported from the surrounding circumstances of the case. In view of the above discussion, no such surrounding circumstances appear to be existing herein, so as to justify the transfer of the petitioners suit from the Court of District Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur to some other competent Court. Reasonable apprehension of not getting justice, is a question of fact which has to be considered and decided in the light of the circumstances of a given case. Reasonable apprehension of not getting justice, is a question of fact which has to be considered and decided in the light of the circumstances of a given case. In the present case, prima facie no such circumstances have been shown to exist. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, finding no ground to transfer the suit of the petitioner from the Court of the learned District Judge at Rampur, the transfer application is dismissed. Application dismissed.