ORDER : By an order of a Division Bench dated 17 February 2014, a direction was issued to the Registry to place the writ petition before the Chief Justice for the exercise of discretion under Clause 14 of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948. 2. The genesis of the petition is explained by the two petitioners, who appeared in person, in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the writ petition, the relevant portion of which is extracted herein below: 'That coming to the subject matter of the PIL, a few days ago Justice Dr. Satish Chandra allegedly misbehaved with a lawyer during a hearing on 22/01/2014. Following the incident, the Oudh Bar Association (OBA, for short) had allegedly passed a resolution against Justice Dr Chandra and had alleged stated that lawyers will not resume judicial work till Justice Dr Chandra was transferred. As per the media reports and the personal experience of both the petitioners, most of the lawyers of the OBA abstained from work. That in short, for many days there was almost a complete boycott/strike of the lawyers at the Lucknow bench of this Hon’ble Court. That as per the media reports and the personal knowledge of the petitioners, the OBA called off their week-long boycott of judicial work on 29/01/2014 (Wednesday) following the shifting of Justice Dr Chandra from Lucknow bench to Allahabad. 3. The petitioners have sought (i) a writ of certiorari cancelling the order of the Chief Justice by which a learned Judge of this Court is to sit at the principal seat of the High Court at Allahabad instead of the Lucknow Bench; (ii) a mandamus that an open and transparent enquiry be conducted; and (iii) a mandamus to frame a transparent grievance redressal mechanism where every advocate, litigant and citizen can register his formal complaint against Judges of this Court or against Judges or Magistrates of any other subordinate Courts under the administrative jurisdiction of the High Court so that each complaint is enquired into and the enquiry report is made public to the extent permissible under law. 4. When the petition came up for hearing before a Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Imtiyaz Murtaza and Hon’ble Mr. 4. When the petition came up for hearing before a Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Imtiyaz Murtaza and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Upadhyaya, the Division Bench made a reference to various averments contained in the petition, more particularly to those in paragraphs 31, 32, 33 and 34 which read as follows: 'That the petitioners also hear that money changes hands in corrupt manner in the lower courts to an extent that can be called horrible and shameless -completely disgusting. Most of the advocates say these words and many of the petitioners friends have given specific examples in this regards which they don’t find appropriate to mention here because it is a subject matter of other specific complaints. That if feels sad to state that even among the High Court Judges, the allegations of financial corruption is raised every now and then. The petitioner No.1 knows of at least two Judges whom the then Chief Justice of this Hon’ble Court stopped from so many routine works, solely on the basis of charges of serious corruption. It is again sad but true that charges of serious corruption were often raised against some other Judges of this Hon’ble Court whose names the petitioners don’t want to disclose in good taste and for decency. That the petitioners were also individually subjected to misbehaviour by some of the Judges of this Hon’ble Court while the petitioner No.1 faced personal misbehaviour at Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and even at Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding which the two petitioners sent complaints to various authorities on which no action has been taken so far. That thus misbehaviour, corruption and inappropriate actions have certainly come to occupy space in present day judicial working. 5. The Division Bench observed that the first petitioner is a lawyer practising primarily at the Lucknow Bench, while the second petitioner has stated that she has been filing a large number of public interest litigations before this Court. Bearing this in mind and taking into account the allegations contained in paragraph 33 of the writ petition to the effect that the petitioners were individually subjected to misbehaviour by some of the Judges of this Court, the Division Bench directed that the papers and proceedings of this case be placed before the Chief Justice for exercising his jurisdiction under Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948. 6. 6. The power which the Chief Justice exercises under Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order is a judicial power. [Manju Verma (Dr.) v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2005) 1 SCC 73 ]. 7. During the course of the hearing, the first petitioner and the second petitioner have been heard. Both of them have urged that they have not sought a transfer of the proceedings to the principal seat of the High Court at Allahabad. The first petitioner has, during the course of his submissions, stated that he has been subjected to exercise of the contempt jurisdiction by one of the Judges of this Court as many as five times, while the second petitioner was abused and manhandled while leaving the Court when the petition came up before the Division Bench on 17 February 2014 as a result of which there is an absence of a proper environment to argue cases before this Court. 8. Learned counsel appearing in person as intervenor has submitted that transferring the case to the principal seat of the High Court at Allahabad would set a wrong precedent because the transfer of the case would then be merely because of serious allegations levelled by the petitioners appearing in person against the Judges of the Lucknow Bench. Moreover, it has been submitted that there is no valid ground for transferring the petition since such a power is exercised normally where similar petitions are pending at Allahabad in which there may be a possibility of conflict of decisions. 9. The power which is conferred upon the Chief Justice under Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order is not confined to a situation only where a similar petition may be pending at Allahabad or in order to ensure that there is no conflict of decisions. Having due regard to the averments contained in the petition, the prevailing situation as the petitioners themselves submitted during the course of the oral hearing when the petition came up for hearing on 17 February 2014, the interest of justice would, in my view, require that the petition should be heard at the principal seat of the High Court at Allahabad. 10. 10. There cannot be any doubt about the basic principal that a litigant cannot choose a forum at will or forum shop nor for that matter a litigant be allowed to get away from the Court merely by levelling allegations against the Judges because in such circumstances it would be easy to seek transfer on unfounded allegations. However, in the facts of the present case, the issues which have been raised in the petition pertain to events which took place at the Lucknow Bench in the month of February 2014. The overall interest of the administration of justice would warrant that since peace has now prevailed and the work of the High Court is proceeding undisturbed, this state of affairs should not be allowed to be disturbed. Any disruption of the work of the Court including even of the dispensation of justice ultimately hurts the common citizens. Consequently, I respectfully concur with the prima facie observations which are contained in the order of the Division Bench dated 17 February 2014, though for the reasons which have been explained herein above. 11. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the effect that the present writ petition along with records shall be transferred to the principal seat of the High Court at Allahabad. Order accordingly.