1. The State Government vide SRO 283 of 29th July, 2010 appointed Commission of Inquiry to inquire into the events resulting in death of 17 persons in Kashmir Division, on account of action taken by State Police/Security Forces from 11th June, 2010 till the date the Commission of Inquiry was constituted and appointed the respondent No. 4 herein as its Chairman and respondent No. 5 as its member. 2. The Special Director General CRPF, Jammu and Inspector General (OPS) Central Reserve Police Force, Kashmir threw challenge to the Notification-SRO 283 of 29th July, 2010 in a writ petition registered as OWP No. 38 of 2011 filed in Jammu Wing of the High Court. 3. The respondent No. 3 herein through the medium of application on hand seeks transfer of the writ petition-OWP No. 38 of 2011 from Jammu Wing to Srinagar Wing of the High Court. The ground for transfer of the petition is that the cause, if any, for filing the writ petition has arisen at Srinagar and that in terms of administrative direction issued by Chief Justice on 29th August, 1996 it is Srinagar Wing of High Court that has jurisdiction to entertain and deal with the petition. It is pleaded that non-applicants/petitioners in the writ petition, have deliberately and willfully filed the writ petition in Jammu Wing of the High Court ignoring the mandate of the administrative direction issued by Chief Justice, directing filing of the petitions pertaining to Jammu and Kashmir Divisions in Jammu and Srinagar Wings of the High Court respectively. It is insisted that the petitioners did not seek any permission from the Chief Justice allowing them to file the petition in Jammu Wing of the High Court irrespective of the place where cause of action to file the writ petition had arisen. In the said background the respondent No. 3 seeks transfer of the petition from Jammu Wing to Srinagar wing. 4. The non-applicants/petitioners oppose the application on the grounds that the Commission of Inquiry-respondent No. 3 after it was constituted held it's sitting at Srinagar as well as Jammu, and the petition in the circumstances was maintainable in Jammu Wing of the High Court. 4. The non-applicants/petitioners oppose the application on the grounds that the Commission of Inquiry-respondent No. 3 after it was constituted held it's sitting at Srinagar as well as Jammu, and the petition in the circumstances was maintainable in Jammu Wing of the High Court. It is further pleaded that though an application moved by the non-applicants/petitioners for supply of the documents was filed at Srinagar, yet it was transmitted to Commission of Inquiry holding at its sitting at the relevant time at Jammu; that the application was considered and decided at Jammu on 11th January, 2011. And the non-applicant/petitioners after their prayer for supply of documents was rejected by Commission at Jammu vide order dated 08.01.2011, decided to file the writ petition in question at Jammu. The non-applicants/petitioners are at pains to point to the facts and events that according to them must persuade the Court to hold that the petition was rightly filed in Jammu Wing of the High Court, as the cause of action for the petition had arisen within jurisdiction of that Court. The case set up by the applicant/respondent No. 3 that as the Notification impugned in the petition was issued by the Department of Law from Civil Secretariat, Srinagar, the petition was required to be filed before Srinagar, Wing of the High Court, is met by the non-applicants/petitioners pleading that the Civil Secretariat functions at Srinagar, as well as Jammu and the place of functioning of Law Department at the time of issuance of Notification would not determine the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a petition questioning the Notification. The other grounds urged in the objections to seek dismissal of the petition is that the non-applicant/petitioner No. 1 having over all supervision over the Central Reserve Police which is deployed to the State, is located at Jammu and so are the Counsel engaged by the petitioners to represent the Central Reserve Police Force before Commission. The proposed transfer of the petition, according to the non-applicants/petitioners would cause great prejudice to their rights as because of the facts set out in the objections it would be impossible to prosecute the petition. 5. Heard and Considered. 6. The proposed transfer of the petition, according to the non-applicants/petitioners would cause great prejudice to their rights as because of the facts set out in the objections it would be impossible to prosecute the petition. 5. Heard and Considered. 6. There is no scope for disagreement with arguments of learned Counsel for the applicant that in terms of Order No. 1/HCJ/96 dated 22nd August, 1996 read with circulars 4, 6 and 7 dated 18.12.2010 and 27.12.2010 all petitions/appeals pertaining to the Jammu and Kashmir Provinces/Divisions are to be filed in respective wing. However, the Chief Justice or the Senior Judge available in his absence has been given power to permit filing of the petition in a High Court Wing other than one where it is required to be filed in terms of aforestated circulars. The case set up in the present application for directing transfer of the writ petition in question from Jammu to Srinagar Wing is not that the petition though validly filed in High Court Wing Jammu, ought to be transferred to the High Court Wing Srinagar for the reasons like convenience of parties, their counsel etc, etc. The application on the other hand raises a jurisdictional question. The applicant seeks transfer on the ground that the writ petition has not been filed in accordance with aforestated circulars and that the cause of action has arisen at Srinagar and that the Jammu Wing of the High Court lacks jurisdiction in terms of aforestated circulars to entertain and deal with the petition. The case projected in the application is controverted by the other-side on the grounds that the cause of action to file and maintain the petition has arisen at Jammu, and the petition has been rightly filed in High Court Wing Jammu. It is pertinent to point out that the applicant/respondent has admittedly not raised the jurisdictional question in it's reply before the writ court. The question cannot be deal-with in a transfer application. The right forum to raise the jurisdictional question is the writ court. The writ court would be in a better position to deal with the question, and issues raised in the pleadings. And determine whether the petition has been rightly filed in High Court Wing Jammu. The question cannot be deal-with in a transfer application. The right forum to raise the jurisdictional question is the writ court. The writ court would be in a better position to deal with the question, and issues raised in the pleadings. And determine whether the petition has been rightly filed in High Court Wing Jammu. Whether the place of issuance of SRO 283 of 29th July, 2010 is to exclusively determine the jurisdiction of the Court to dealt with petition seeking quashment of said SRO is the question to be answered by the writ court. Similarly the fallout of the decision taken by the Commission of Inquiry to hold its sitting at Jammu, entertain and receive application from the parties or either of them at Jammu, accord consideration to the applications so filed at Jammu, and pass order at Jammu on the question of jurisdiction is to be determined by the writ court. In the said background the applicant/respondent No. 3 can not draw support from law laid down in Hamid-Ullah Bhat & Anr. v. State and Ors. 2005(2) JKJ 151 (HC), for the simple reason that the respondents in the said case instead of filing a Transfer Application, raised the question of jurisdiction before the writ court, allowing the writ court to answer the question against the backdrop of pleadings and the material available on the file and the writ court on consideration of such material disposed of, the writ petition on preliminary objection with a direction for returning of the petition to the petitioners to be presented before appropriate Wing of the High Court. 7. In the present case, the course suggested by learned Counsel for applicant/respondents would amount to hijacking the proceedings from the writ court and dealing with as also determine the questions that are to be adjudicated upon by the writ court in a Transfer Application, that indisputably is limited in spread and scope. 8. This apart allowing the application on hand would amount to legitimizing and condoning the error, if any, on part of the non-applicants/petitioners in choosing a wrong forum (High Court Jammu) to file the writ petition. It is pertinent to point out that the Court, orders transfers of a petition or for that matter, any proceedings on an assumption that such petition or proceedings have been validly instituted. It is pertinent to point out that the Court, orders transfers of a petition or for that matter, any proceedings on an assumption that such petition or proceedings have been validly instituted. The Court cannot transfer a petition or other proceedings that according to the Counsel for the applicant have been filed in a wrong forum or to Court without jurisdiction or and thus impart legality to the proceedings. It is for the said reasons that in Hamid-Ullah Bhat & Anr. v. State and Others (supra) the Court did not direct transfer of the petition to the High Court Wing, that according to the Court had jurisdiction to entertain and deal with the petition. The writ court on the other hand directed return of the petition to the petitioners, so as to enable the petitioners to file the petition in the appropriate Wing of the High Court. 9. Viewed thus the right course for the applicant/respondent would be to lay a motion before the writ court for grant of leave to amend its reply, in case it stands already filed without raising the plea of absence of jurisdiction and in the event such leave is granted to amend its reply and project the stand taken in the instant application in its reply before writ court. As far as the application in hand is concerned, it is bereft of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.