Judgment : This transfer petition was purported to have been filed on behalf of one Mukesh, an accused in connection with F.I.R. No.413 dated 17th December, 2012, of Vasant Vihar Police Station, New Delhi, praying for transfer of the criminal case pending before the Sessions Court at Saket, New Delhi, to Mathura in Uttar Pradesh or any other State preferable, for fair trial and to avoid miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. An affidavit in support of the said transfer petition was affirmed by Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned Advocate, on the strength of a Vakalatnama, executed by the accused in favour of one Mr. N. Rajaraman, learned Advocate-on-Record. When the transfer petition was taken up by this Court on 23rd January, 2013, one Mr. V.K. Anand, Advocate, had appeared and submitted that he had instructions to appear on behalf of the accused before the Trial Court and that neither Mr. N. Rajaraman nor Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned Advocates, had any authority to represent the accused even in the Transfer Petition. Having regard to the aforesaid submission, we had requested the learned Sessions Judge to enquire from the accused as to his choice of Advocate and to file a report in that behalf. Such report has been filed and on perusal of the same, we find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court) had questioned the accused, Mukesh, who had categorically stated that he wanted Shri V.K. Anand, learned Advocate, to represent him, both in the Trial Court and also in the Transfer Petition. In fact, it has been recorded in the Report that the Vakalatnama issued by the accused in favour of Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned Advocate, in the Trial Court had been discharged. A statement made by the accused before the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this regard, has also been annexed. Despite the aforesaid report, Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned Advocate, insisted that he as an individual, has a right to ask for transfer of the case under Section 406 Cr.P.C., on the ground that the accused would not get a fair trial before the Special Fast Track Court, before which the matter is pending. Citing the decisions of this Court in K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 767 and Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Another v. State of Gujarat and Others (2004) 5 SCC 353 , Mr. Citing the decisions of this Court in K. Anbazhagan v. Superintendent of Police and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 767 and Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Another v. State of Gujarat and Others (2004) 5 SCC 353 , Mr. Sharma urged that in the interest of justice, he should be allowed to continue with the Transfer Petition, despite the preference indicated by the accused. We are afraid that we cannot accept Mr. Sharma's submission in the facts and circumstances of this case. The question of locus standi in the case of K. Anbazhagan, was in different circumstances, where the Chief Minister of the State was involved and the petitioner was a political rival, thus, being a person interested in the proceedings. The said element is absent in this case and, accordingly, the said decision would not apply to the facts of this case. Once the accused has expressed his desire to be represented by a counsel, other than Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, the question of allowing him to proceed with the Transfer Petition does not arise. In that view of the matter, the transfer petition, as filed and affirmed by Mr. Sharma, is dismissed. Let the Report submitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court), Saket Courts, New Delhi, dated 24th January, 2013, be kept with the records.