Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1954 (RAJ)

Rampati v. Manju Jain

2018-09-19

VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

body2018
JUDGMENT Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J. - The petitioner, a successful elected "Sarpanch" is contesting a challenge to her election projected through an election petition No. 05/2015, pending before the Election Tribunal, Dausa. Aggrieved of the impugned order dated 11th September, 2018, whereby the application for transfer of the election petition to some different Court under Section 24 CPC; has been declined by the District Judge, Dausa. Hence, the petitioner has instituted the present writ application. 2. A glance of the impugned order dated 11th September, 2018, would reveal that the election petition was instituted in the year 2015, and the trial did not proceed as expected, and therefore, the election petitioner instituted SBCWP No. 23135/2017, which was decided on 20th December, 2017, in the backdrop of law declared by Apex Court of the land in the case of Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh Vs. Mairembam Prithviraj: AIR 2015 SC 3783 , specifically observing that adjournment in such matters shall not be granted without just cause except when inevitable and that too for the shortest possible time by a reasoned order on a proper application to be filed to the satisfaction of the trial court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that earlier the opposite party (election petitioner), filed an application for transfer. However, the same was withdrawn. 4. Referring to impugned order dated 11th September, 2018, learned counsel urged that short dates were fixed in the matter when the petitioner was required to lead her evidence, and therefore, application under Section 24 CPC for the transfer of election petition was instituted; which has been declined. 5. From the impugned order, it is evident that the matter was posted for evidence of the petitioner on 28th August, 2018, but the petitioner did not lead any evidence, and therefore, the matter was adjourned to 10th September, 2018. For no evidence was led on that date as well, the matter was again adjourned to 12th September, 2018. While granting further opportunity to lead evidence to the petitioner the Election Tribunal imposed cost, which is another ground for assailment of the impugned order declining the prayer for transfer of the matter; is sought to be canvased before this Court for transfer of the matter to some other Court. 6. While granting further opportunity to lead evidence to the petitioner the Election Tribunal imposed cost, which is another ground for assailment of the impugned order declining the prayer for transfer of the matter; is sought to be canvased before this Court for transfer of the matter to some other Court. 6. Having considered the contents of the writ application and materials available on record so also reasons detailed out in the impugned order dated 11th September, 2018; this Court is satisfied that the application instituted by the petitioner for transfer of the election petition, is only an attempt to delay the adjudication of the election petition for obvious reasons. 7. There is no factual foundation laid either in the application or in the writ application, as well, to sustain the plea for transfer of the matter to some different Court. From the impugned order dated 11th September, 2018, it is further reflected that the election petitioner (Smt. Manju Jain), instituted a writ application before this Court for an early adjudication of the election petition in view of the fact that the presiding officer of the Election Tribunal was often on leave on account of ailment with 'Cancer'. The Court below also recorded a specific finding to the effect that the transfer application instituted by the election petitioner was dismissed as "not pressed", for the matter was transferred to another court in view of the fact that the Presiding Officer of the earlier court suffered with 'Cancer'. 8. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the election petitioner took a considerable long time in the process to complete her evidence whereas the petitioner was accorded only short dates; is a plea absolutely misconceived. The election petitioner could not have benefited an any manner by causing delay in the matter for the election petition has been instituted by her. Furthermore, from the materials available on record and reasons recorded by the court below while declining the application of the petitioner; it is evident that election petitioner is eager for an early adjudication of the election petition. 9. Indisputably, the petitioner was accorded reasonable time to lead evidence on 28th August, 2018. For no evidence was led by her, she was accorded another opportunity posting the matter to 10th September, 2018, and on her failure to lead evidence on that date as well, the matter was posted to 12th September, 2018. 9. Indisputably, the petitioner was accorded reasonable time to lead evidence on 28th August, 2018. For no evidence was led by her, she was accorded another opportunity posting the matter to 10th September, 2018, and on her failure to lead evidence on that date as well, the matter was posted to 12th September, 2018. And it was thereafter cost was imposed while according further time. The admitted facts, as have surfaced with reference to opportunity allowed to the petitioner to lead evidence; by no stretch of imagination can be said to be circumstances whereupon the petitioner may sustain an application for transfer of the election petition. 10. By now, it is well settled that power under Section 24 CPC, cannot be exercised ipse dixit without stating anything whatsoever as to the allegations of bias and/or malafide. Court below while declining the application of the petitioner under Section 24 CPC, duly considered the factual matrix of the case at hand and rightly arrived at the conclusion declining the prayer of the petitioner. 11. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Balraj Singh & Anr. Vs. Ajit Singh: AIR 2005 Raj. 120 , dealing with the issue of transfer of case from one Court to another, in no uncertain terms observed that such an exercise casts doubt on the competence and integrity of the Judge from whom the case is sought to be transferred. An order for transfer of the case should be made only for good and sufficient reasons and on grounds, clearly set out in the application which may justify the transfer. This Court is in complete agreement with view aforesaid. 12. Impugned order dated 11th September, 2018, declining the prayer of the petitioner for transfer of the matter is perfectly legal and valid. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ application instituted by the petitioner is absolutely devoid of any substance and merits rejection with cost of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only). 14. Ordered accordingly.