ORDER Rajesh Shankar, J. - The present writ petition has been filed for restraining the respondent no. 3-the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas-cum-Rent Controller from proceeding with JBCA Case No. 10/2015 pending before nim and further for transferring the same to any other appropriate court or forum falling under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Hon''ble Court. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner is running a medical shop in the rented premises which is owned by one Dr. Shailendra Kumar, who purchased the property from Anuradha Niyogi by virtue of a sale-deed dated 14.11.2014. The claim of the petitioner is that after acquisition of property, the respondent no. 4, who is the mother and power of attorney holder of Dr. Shailendra Kumar, insisted the petitioner to execute fresh lease deed with the stipulation suiting to her and when the petitioner refused to sign the fresh lease deed, the respondent no. 4 wrote a letter dated 13.10.2015 to the local police alleging misbehaviour with her by the occupants when she visited the rented premises during Diwali festival for cleaning and repairing of the premises. According to the petitioner, the respondent no. 4 on the same day, forcibly evicted the tenants including the petitioner with the aid of some miscreants and put locks on one side of the shutter. On the same day, reports were managed from the police for initiation of action under Section 144 Cr.P.C , 1973as also under Section 107 Cr.P.C., 1973Thus, the S.D.O, Chas initiated proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C , 1973as M.P Case No. 565 of 2015 and under Section 107 Cr.P.C , 1973as M.P Case No. 566 of 2015, wherein order of status-quo was passed. In the meantime, on 16.11.2015, the respondent no. 4 preferred an application in the court of House Rent Controller-cum-S.D.O, Chas for eviction of the petitioner vide JBCA Case No. 10/2015 on the ground of her personal necessity, non-execution of fresh rent agreement, misbehaviour and also refusal to pay rent. On 19.11.2015, the S.D.O, Chas passed order in the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C., 1973 directing that the medicine shop be evacuated in the presence of Executive Magistrate. The petitioner also moved an application for opening of the shop as the medicines were getting damaged. On 19.11.2015, the S.D.O, Chas passed order in the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C., 1973 directing that the medicine shop be evacuated in the presence of Executive Magistrate. The petitioner also moved an application for opening of the shop as the medicines were getting damaged. The S.D.O, however, wrote letter to the Executive Magistrate, Chas asking him to get the shop vacated and all articles to be handed over to the petitioner. Further on 07.12.2015, the S.D.O. passed order in M.P Case No. 565 of 2015 under Section 144 Cr.P.C., 1973 making the prohibition absolute against the tenants on the ground of their being unwilling to vacate the premises or to execute lease renewal agreement. On 04.01.2016, the S.D.O, Chas while acting as Rent Controller under the J.B.C Act passed an ex-parte vague order against the defendant tenants directing for disposal of medicines lying in the shop on the ground that me drug licence was cancelled on 22.12.2015 ignoring the fact that the service report of the notice was not yet received. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 3 has committed a spate of illegalities exceeding his jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 3 has committed abuse of quasi-judicial power conferred to him by the statute as Rent Controller under the JBCA Act and the prohibitory proceedings under section 144 and 107 Cr.P.C , 1973triggered by the respondent no. 4, who was also able to obtain prejudicial and illegal orders against the petitioner from the Drug Authorities. The petitioner has preferred preliminary objection regarding non-maintainability of J.B.C Case No. 10 of 2015 which is still pending. It is further submitted that the learned S.D.O. has acted in a mala fide manner against the petitioner which would be evident from his act that in the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C., 1973 the S.D.O. has completely restrained the petitioner and his family members from entering into the rented premises, whereas a simultaneous proceeding for eviction of the petitioner was also pending before him under the capacity of the Rent Controller. The S.D.O. while acting as a Rent Controller, by an ex-parte order dated 04.01.2016 directed for disposal of the medicines lying in the shop on the pretext that the drug licence was cancelled. The S.D.O. while acting as a Rent Controller, by an ex-parte order dated 04.01.2016 directed for disposal of the medicines lying in the shop on the pretext that the drug licence was cancelled. Thus, it is a case of gross and glaring abuse of power which manifests lack of fairness and impartiality on his part. It is lastly submitted that the S.D.O, Chas is liable to be restrained from further proceeding as the Rent Controller in the JBCA Case No. 10 of 2015 by issuing a writ of prohibition. 4. The learned counsel for the State respondents submits that though biasness has been alleged by the petitioner against the respondent no. 3, he failed to adduce any sufficient evidence to substantiate the said allegation, thus the same is liable to be rejected. It is further submitted that since the application filed by the petitioner raising preliminary objection against filing of the JBCA Case No. 10 of 2015 is still pending in the Court of Rent Controller-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Chas, the interference of this Court is not warranted on mere apprehension of the petitioner that some unfavourable order would be passed against him. It is also submitted that the drug licence of the petitioner was cancelled by the Deputy Director (Drug)-cum-Regional Licensing Authority and the order was communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No. 1083/Hazaribag dated 22.12.2015. In view of the said fact, it was ordered by the respondent no. 3 to dispose of the medicines within one week from the date of order. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner has prayed for transfer of the JBCA Case No. 10 of 2015 to any other authority alleging that the S.D.O, Chas has proceeded with the case with biasness. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has highlighted some of the orders of the S.D.O, Chas passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C., 1973 Aggrieved by the order passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C., 1973 the petitioner has not preferred any revision application in accordance with law and as such, the legality and propriety of that order cannot be looked into at this stage, more so when the present writ petition has been filed only for transferring the JBCA Case No. 10/2015 pending before the S.D.O, Chas-cum-Rent Controller. Merely because in another proceeding some adverse orders have been passed by a quasi-judicial court against the petitioner, it is not appropriate to assume that the said quasi-judicial authority is biased and would adversely decide the other case of the applicant. Invariably, the administrative authorities are entrusted with various quasi-judicial functions conferred by different statutes and government notifications. It is not an extraordinary situation where the S.D.O. has exercised his jurisdiction under section 144 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and as the Rent Controller under JBCA Act. If according to the petitioner, the order passed in the first case is wrong or illegal, it is always open to her to challenge it before the appropriate court in accordance with law. A litigant should not be encouraged by passing an order of transfer of a case unless a strong case of biasness/mala fide is made out. While dealing with such application for transfer/stay of the case, the court hearing such application should absolutely be satisfied that there are sufficient materials on record to hold that there is a strong likelihood of biasness on the part of the presiding officer. If on said grounds, the cases are transferred, it would give rise to dissatisfaction amongst the litigants and chronic litigants would intend to prolong hearing or disposal of the proceedings by adopting such measures if they fail to get favourable orders in parallel proceedings. After all, if a court allows or dismisses a case, the litigant adversely affected by the said order has the right to challenge the same before appropriate court on all available grounds. Mere apprehension of the prejudice or bias simply on account of unfavourable orders passed by the Rent Controller against the petitioner-tenant is no ground for transfer of the proceedings from the Rent Controller to some other authority. It is the duty of the court to reject frivolous, untenable and irresponsible allegations of bias made by a dissatisfied litigant, more particularly when the court finds that the transfer application has been filed with an intention to thwart the proceedings. If transfer sought on such grounds are allowed, it would not only hamper the course of justice, but the same would cause a grave damage to the administration of justice. 6. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed with a direction to the respondent no. If transfer sought on such grounds are allowed, it would not only hamper the course of justice, but the same would cause a grave damage to the administration of justice. 6. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to proceed with the cases in accordance with law.