Transfer of proceedings from judicial officer can't be merely on apprehension of bias: Bombay HC
Mumbai (PTI): The Bombay High Court has said transfer of proceedings from a judicial officer cannot be done on mere allegation by one party, and dismissed a petition of the Lilavati Hospital's trust founder alleging bias against the Charity Commissioner.
A single bench of Justice Sharmila Deshmukh last month refused to transfer the proceedings pertaining to a dispute between the trustees from the Charity Commissioner to any other judicial officer, noting there was no reasonable apprehension of bias or prejudice.
The HC said passing of an adverse order cannot be the foundation for seeking transfer of proceedings.
"It is necessary to ensure for securing the ends of justice that a mere allegation is differentiated from an apprehension and what is required is a reasonable apprehension. An absence of congenial atmosphere cannot be a ground for transfer," it said.
The court dismissed the petition filed by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust founder Charu Mehta and permanent trustees Rajesh Mehta and Prashant Mehta, seeking transfer of all proceedings pertaining to the trust from the Charity Commissioner to any other judicial officer while alleging bias.
The petitioners are embroiled in a dispute with the other trustees over control of the trust and the Lilavati Hospital.
"In my view the apprehension of the petitioners lacks foundation," the judge said.
The adverse orders passed by the Charity Commissioner against the petitioners cannot be said to be the result of a "pre-judged mind and cannot form the basis for reasonable apprehension that justice will not be done by the Charity Commissioner while adjudicating the proceedings," the HC said.
The court noted that transfer of proceedings from a court or a quasi-judicial officer is usually viewed as a suspicion being cast on the conduct of proceedings by the judicial officer and hence transfer cannot be based on mere allegation.
Earlier this year, the Charity Commissioner provisionally accepted certain change reports of the trust and initiated suo motu (on its own) inquiry against the trustees including the petitioners and pending inquiry suspended the trustees except Charu Mehta.
Mehta and the two other trustees filed a petition in the HC, challenging the Charity Commissioner's order.
The HC in September stayed the order, noting the Charity Commissioner had acted contrary to the provisions of law.
The petitioners claimed the Charity Commissioner initiated suo motu inquiry even when there was no such prayer from the other side.
The plea alleged the Charity Commissioner had held a private meeting with lawyers of the other side, which casts a serious doubt about impartiality.
The respondent trustees claimed the petitioners habitually file transfer applications when faced with adverse orders and those applications have been rejected in the past.
The HC observed that even if the orders passed are not in accordance with law, at the most it can be said to be a perverse order capable of being corrected by the higher forum.
"However, the passing of such an order itself cannot be said to be the result of a predetermined and prejudiced mind," the court said.
The allegations levelled by the petitioners, if viewed, in isolation would not indicate any basis for apprehension of bias and even if viewed cumulatively it would at the most amount to passing of adverse orders, the HC said.
"The judicial orders passed by the authorities legitimately, though may or may not be corrected by the higher forums, cannot lead to an inference of pre-judged and/or pre-determined and/or biased mind against the litigant," it said.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
UP Police use tear gas to disperse crowd throwing stones during Sambhal mosque survey
Sambhal (UP) (PTI): Police used tear gas and "minor force" in the face of stone pelting by locals here on Sunday as tension escalated during a second survey of the Mughal-era mosque, claimed to be originally the site of an ancient Hindu temple.
Tension has been seething in Sambhal over the past few days after the Jama Masjid was surveyed last Tuesday on the orders of a local court following a petition that claimed that a Harihar temple stood at the site.
According to the local administration, a second survey by an "Advocate Commissioner" as part of a court-ordered examination into the disputed site began around 7 am and a crowd began gathering at the spot.
"Some miscreants came out of the crowd gathered near the site and pelted stones at the police team. The police used minor force and tear gas to bring the situation under control," Superintendent of Police Krishna Kumar Vishnoi said.
He said those who engaged in stone pelting and those who incited them will be identified and action taken against them.
District Magistrate Rajendra Pesia said, "Some miscreants resorted to stone pelting but the situation is peaceful now and the survey is underway."
Videos of youths throwing stones at police, purportedly near the site of the survey in Sambhal have surfaced on the Internet.
Supreme Court lawyer Vishnu Shankar Jain, who is also the petitioner in the case, had said the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) ordered the constitution of an "Advocate Commission" to survey the mosque.
The court has said that a report should be filed after conducting a videography and photography survey through the commission, he had said.
The Central and Uttar Pradesh governments, the mosque committee and the district magistrate of Sambhal have been made parties in the petition concerning the mosque, Jain said last Tuesday.
Vishnu Shankar Jain and his father Hari Shankar Jain have represented the Hindu side in many cases related to places of worship, including the Gyanvapi Mosque-Kashi Vishwanath temple dispute.
Gopal Sharma, a local lawyer for the Hindu side, told PTI on Friday that in his petition filed in the court, he mentioned that "Baburnama" and the "Ain-e-Akbari" has confirmed that a Harihar temple was at the site where the Jama Masjid now stands.
He also claimed that the temple was demolished by Mughal Emperor Babur in 1529.
Samajwadi Party (SP) MP Zia Ur Rehman Barq had objected to the developments.
"The Jama Masjid of Sambhal is historical and very old. The Supreme Court had given the order in 1991 that whatever religious places are there in whatever condition since 1947, they will remain at their places," he had said.
The next date for hearing in this case is January 29.
VIDEO | Uttar Pradesh: Stones and slippers pelted in Sambhal when a survey team reached Shahi Jama Masjid to conduct a survey of the mosque.
— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) November 24, 2024
(Full video available on PTI Videos - https://t.co/n147TvrpG7)#SambhalJamaMasjid pic.twitter.com/K4QGGpzlMK
