JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri V.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 20.6.2011 passed by Collector, Bijnor rejecting petitioner’s application under Section 12-Ga (4)(5) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 for transferring the Case No. 2 of 2010, Vinod Kumar v. Sanjay Kumar to another competent court. 3. The Collector has found that petitioner has made allegations against Presiding Officer that he used to meet the opposite party in the matter and has a soft corner for him, therefore, there is no hope of justice. He has also made allegation that the officer concerned want to keep the matter pending and not to decide it and since the opposite party is an Advocate himself, therefore, also he has no hope of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to paras 2, 4 and 6 of application which reads as under: ^^2- ;g fd fouksn dqekj ;kfpdkdrkZ ,MoksdsV gS tks /kkeiqj esa fof/k O;olk; dk dk;Z foxr djhc 20 o"kksZa ls djrs pys vk jgs gSa vkSj ijxukf/kdkjh egksn; /kkeiqj ds U;k;ky; esa fof/k O;olk; dk dk;Z djus ds dkj.k mudk U;k;ky; ij iwjk izHkko gSA 4- ;g fd fouksn dqekj ds izHkko ls mijksDr of.kZr pquko ;kfpdk esa 'kh?kz vfr 'kh?kz lquokbZ gks jgh gS tcfd blh U;k;ky; esa yfEcr vU; pquko ;kfpdkvksa esa vHkh rd uk rks c;ku rgjhjh vkeaf=r fd;s x;s gSa u gh nkf[ky gq, gSaA fdlh Hkh vU; pquko ;kfpdk esa dksbZ lk{; ugha gqvk gSA 6- ;g fd bl rF; ls ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ ds gd esa vkns’k iqu% cgqr dfBu gS D;ksafd ;kfpdkdrkZ fouksn dqekj U;k;ky; ijxukf/kdkjh ds U;k;ky; esa fof/k O;olk;h gSaA vU; vf/koDrkx.k Hkh mUgha dh iSjoh djus esa rRij jgrs gSaA izkFkhZ dks U;k;ky; ijxukf/kdkjh /kkeiqj ls U;k; feyuk vlEHko gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mijksDr of.kZr pquko ;kfpdk dks fdlh vU; l{ke U;k;ky; dks V~kUlQj fd;k tkuk U;k;fgr esa o izkFkhZ ds fgr esa vko’;d gSA** 4. In my view no interference is called for. This is a petition filed for maligning the reputation of Presiding Officer of the Court without substantiating any allegation at all and, therefore, not only mischievous but is likely to set a bad precedent. In my view no interference is called for. This is a petition filed for maligning the reputation of Presiding Officer of the Court without substantiating any allegation at all and, therefore, not only mischievous but is likely to set a bad precedent. Merely because one of the party to case is an Advocate, that would not mean that he can have such an influence or relation with judicial officer that other party would not get justice. It is a normal practice that outside the Court, Presiding Officers and Advocates, who are also officers of the Court, constitute single lot and many a times in functions meet each other. Similarly, if an Advocate comes to meet the Presiding Officer or a Judge in his Chamber or at residence, normal curtsey some time extended by a Judge by itself cannot be said to reflect upon the judicial integrity of a Judge. 5. In my view, this writ petition is gross abuse of process of law and is an attempt to malign the reputation of a Presiding Officer without substantiating the allegations hence such kinds of writ petition should be dealt with seriously. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified to Rs. 50,000/-. ——————