The Allahabad High Court, in Writ – B No. 1570 of 2025 (Jai Singh vs State of U.P. and Others), dismissed a writ petition challenging a Board of Revenue order that rejected a transfer application. Justice J.J. Munir imposed a cost of ₹5,000 on the petitioner, observing that the allegations made against the Presiding Officer were “utterly scandalous” and lacked any supporting material.
Background
The petitioner, Jai Singh, had sought transfer of Revision No. 791 of 2021, Ganeshanuj Das vs Gopal Ram and Others, pending before the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), 3rd, Bareilly, to another competent court within the same Commissionerate. The application was filed under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The Board of Revenue had rejected the transfer application without recording reasons, which was challenged in the present writ.
Petitioner’s Allegations
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Umesh Chandra Tiwari contended that the Board’s order was cryptic and devoid of reasoning. He also submitted that the Presiding Officer displayed bias by not deciding an application dated 25.05.2023 separately and by repeatedly deferring hearings, allegedly aiding the opposite party. The transfer application further alleged that respondent no. 4 (Ganeshanuj Das) wielded political influence and had claimed that the case would not be decided without his consent. It also made a serious accusation of collusion between the Presiding Officer and respondent no. 4.
Court’s Observations
Justice Munir agreed that the impugned order of the Board lacked reasons but stated that this deficiency alone would not have changed the outcome. After examining the transfer application, the Court found that the allegations were “absolutely unsupported” by any material or compelling circumstances.
“A wrong order or a wrong procedure does not lead to an inference of bias,” the Court observed, adding that delays in hearing a matter also do not constitute evidence of bias.
Regarding the accusations of political connections and influence, the Court noted:
“The names of politically powerful persons or those in political power, have not been mentioned to test the veracity of the allegations, let alone any material annexed to show the connections claimed for the 4th respondent.”
The Court also warned against making reckless accusations of connivance:
“The further case about there being a connivance between the Presiding Officer and respondent no. 4 borders on criminal contempt.”
Justice Munir remarked that such baseless allegations reflected “extreme indiscipline and lack of a sense of propriety,” and were incompatible with the conduct expected in a civilised society.
Decision and Costs
Finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed it with costs of ₹5,000. The petitioner was directed to deposit the amount with the Registrar General within 15 days. If not deposited, it would be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The recovered amount is to be remitted to the High Court Legal Services Authority.
The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to communicate the Court’s order to the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) 3rd, Bareilly via the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bareilly.
