Virendra Pal Singh and another vs Board of Revenue, U.P.At Lucknow and others

Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard Sri P.S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri Madhusudan Dikshit, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel.

With the consent of the parties, writ petition is disposed of at this stage.

By means of present petition, petitioners are challenging the order of the Chairman, Board of Revenue dated 21.8.2008 by which he has directed the District Magistrate, Saharanpur to transfer the case No. 102/20072008 from the present Sub Divisional Magistrate to some other Sub Divisional Magistrate.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that earlier, respondents have moved transfer application before the Additional Commissioner which has been rejected vide order dated 2.5.2008, Annexure6 to the writ petition. Thereafter, concealing this fact, respondents filed transfer application before the Commissioner, who vide order dated 6.5.2008 stayed the proceeding and asked for the report. The said application is still pending. Now the respondents have moved third transfer application before the Board of Revenue and on the same day, Chairman, Board of Revenue without giving any opportunity of hearing directed the District Magistrate, Saharanpur to transfer the case to some other SubDivisional Magistrate. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that concealing the fact about the two earlier transfer applications, respondents have filed transfer application before the Board of Revenue and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners order has been passed.

Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that writ petition be allowed and the order of the Chairman, Board of Revenue be set aside and the matter be sent back to Chairman, Board of Revenue to decide the matter afresh.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the order of the Chairman, Board of Revenue dated 21.8.2008 is not sustainable, which has been passed without giving opportunity to the parties concerned in patent violation of principles of natural justice, the transfer application of the respondents has been allowed without assigning any reason. Where the rights of the parties are likely to be affected, the judicial order or quasi judicial order should always be passed after giving opportunity of hearing. The Chairman, Board of Revenue while exercising the power to transfer the case exercises the quasi judicial power and, therefore, opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned are necessary. Moreover, while transferring the case the reason for the transfer should also be assigned. In the present case while allowing the transfer application, no reason whatsoever has been given which is wholly unjustified.

In these circumstances, writ petition is allowed. The order dated 21.8.2008 passed by the Chairman, Board of Revenue is set aside. He is directed to decide the transfer application moved by the respondents afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the respondents. He is directed that while disposing of the transfer application, he may consider the submissions made by the petitioners, referred herein above, or any other submissions made by them during the course of argument. The petitioners are directed to file the certified copy of the order within a period of three weeks and the Chairman, Board of Revenue is directed to decide the transfer application expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties in accordance to law.

Till the disposal of the transfer application, the proceeding pending before the SubDivisional Magistrate, Sadar, Saharanpur shall be kept in abeyance.