JUDGMENT
C.K. Thakker, C.J.
1. This application is filed by Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, applicant-original respondent No. 8 in Writ Petition No. 3399 of 2000 praying therein to transfer Writ Petition No. 3399 of 2000 as well as Writ Petition No. 2923 of 2003 from Nagpur Bench to Principal Bench at Bombay.
2. The case of the applicant, as stated in the miscellaneous application, is that it is responded No. 8 in Writ Petition No. 3399 of 2000. That petition was filed by Grahak Panchayat, Nagpur, a Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, against the State of Maharashtra and others. A complaint made in the said petition by Grahak Panchayat related to load shedding by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board. It was Public Interest Litigation (PIL). Central India Power Company was permitted to intervene. Initially, the petitioner was not joined as party respondent. But by an order dated 8th August, 2003, the applicant was added as respondent. A direction was sought against the Union of India not to allot coal blocks to the applicant.
3. The Central India Power Company filed an independent petition being Writ Petition No. 2923 of 2003 against Union of India and the State of Maharashtra, without impleading applicant a party respondent. A relief was sought that the coal fields be allotted to the Central India Power Company. According to the applicant, the subject matter in the petition filed by Central India Power Company did not involve public interest and the grievance was individual in nature.
4. It was also stated that when Writ Petition No. 2923 of 2003 came up for hearing before a Division Bench of R.M. Lodha & S.P. Deshmukh, JJ. on August 25, 2003, notice was issued by the Division Bench but no interim relief was granted. Subsequent to the said order, however, the matter appeared before another Division Bench of J.N. Patel & S.G. Mahajan, JJ. On 4th September, 2003.
5. According to the applicant, as per the roster commencing from August 8, 2003. PILs, writ petitions and other work was with the Division Bench of R.M. Lodha & S.P. Deshmuk, JJ. and after the appointment of Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.J. Rohee, with the Bench comprising of R.M. Lodha and K.J. Rohee, JJ. Though Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.N. Patel was sitting in the Division Bench with Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.T. Kharche, hearing of PILs was not with the said Bench. Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.G. Mahajan was to take up civil matters as a single Judge.
6. The grievance of the applicant is that in spite of the roster, Writ Petition No. 3399 of 2000 was taken up by the Bench of J.N. Patel and S.G. Mahajan, JJ. on 4th September, 2003 which could not have been done. It was also stated that on 10th September, 2003, Civil Application No. 5587 of 2003 was heard by a Division Bench of R.M. Lodha and S.P. Deshmukh, JJ. and detailed order was passed directing the papers to be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice.
7. According to the applicant, a Division Bench of J.N. Patel and S.G. Mahajan, JJ., in the order dated 4th September, 2003 virtually granted interim relief which was refused by a Division Bench of R.M. Lodha and S.P. Deshmukh, JJ.
8. In view of the above circumstances. the applicant in paragraph 12 of the application, prayed;
“The Applicant submits that in view of the aforesaid background, and in view of the three orders appended hereto, it would be in the interest of justice to transfer W.P. 3399/00 and W.P. 2923/03 for being heard at Bombay, more particularly so in view of the apparent controversy that has been created as a total effect of the three orders appended herewith.
9. On September 15, 2003, notice was issued by making it returnable on September 26, 2003 at 4.45 p.m. in Court.
10. I have heard the parties.
11. The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that as per roster, the matter could have been heard only by a Bench of R.M. Lodha and S.P. Deshmukh, JJ. and it could not have been placed before a Bench of J.N. Patel and S.G. Mahajan, JJ. It was submitted that in view of the orders passed by two different Division Benches, it would be appropriate, if both the matters are heard at Bombay. It was also submitted that orders passed by two different Division Benches are irreconcilable and on the ground also it would be appropriate if the papers are called for and the petitions are decided at the Principal Seat at Bombay.
12. The prayer is strongly opposed by opponent No. 1 (original petitioner of Writ Petition No. 3399 of 2000, Grahak Panchayat, Nagpur). In reply to the application for transfer, on an affidavit by Coordinator of Grahak Panchayat, it was stated that the petition was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, and the said petition is a Public Interest Petition filed for protecting the rights of the citizens, consumers and for fighting against the deficiencies as regards electricity”. The said petition challenges the load shedding so also inaction of M.S.E.B. in recovering arrears of huge electricity dues and discontinuing electricity supply to high tension consumers, though they were in arrears amounting to crores of rupees. Other reliefs were also prayed in the said petition. it was further stated that orders were passed from time to time and crores of rupees had been recovered towards arrears of electricity charges from defaulters.
13. It was asserted that the petition is argued by the Advocate of the petitioner without charging any fees and in the public interest. According to the deponent, the Grahak Panchayat is not in a financial position to engage an advocate at Bombay (which is away from Nagpur), to argue Writ Petition No. 3399 of 2000. Moreover, subject matter of the petition concerns Vidarbha area and in particular Nagpur and “there is no reason to transfer the same to Bombay”. It was contended that merely because two connected matters were heard by separate Benches is no ground to transfer both the matters to Bombay. According to the opponent, Grahak Panchat, transfer of case at bombay would result in miscarriage of justice to Grahak Panchayat, petitioner in Writ Petitioner NO. 3399 of 2000 as the petitioner would be unable to fight litigation because of paucity of funds. A prayer was, therefore, made to reject the petition.
14. Mr. Chagla. learned senior advocate, also supported opponent No. 1 and contested the prayer made by the applicant. he submitted that Writ Petition No. 3399 of 2000 was filed in 2000 and is pending at Nagpur since then. Several interim orders were passed. A compilation of such orders has been placed on record by the learned counsel. The Counsel expressly stated at the Bar that opponent No. 8, Central Electricity authority of India, has no objection, if any order is passed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice on administrative side as to the Division Bench before which all the matters can be placed so as to avoid conflicting orders. According to him, however, that should not be a ground for transferring matters from Nagpur to Bombay. The mater relates to Vidharbha area of Nagpur. The cause of action had arisen there. The petitioners are pending and various orders were passed at Nagpur. Parties represented by Advocates also belong to Nagpur and, hence, the prayer made by the applicant before this Court to transfer petitions to Bombay cannot be said to be reasonable and may not be granted.
15. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, in my opinion, no case has been made out for transfer of petitions from Nagpur to Bombay. Reading the facts stated and averments made in the present application also, in my opinion, there are no reasons/grounds for transfer of petitions from Nagpur to Bombay. Only thing which was stated by the applicant was that on two different dates, matters were placed before two different Division Benches. highlighting as to what had happened, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is likelihood of conflicting orders by different Division Benches, if the matters are heard by different Benches.
16. In my view, even if the apprehension is well founded, the contention raised by the contenting opponents is well founded that it is not a ground for transferring the petitioners from nagpur Bench to Bombay Seat particularly when Writ Petition No. 3399 of 2000 is pending since about three years and several interim orders were passed by Nagpur Bench. Moreover, the matter pertains to Vidarbha area. The parties are also from Nagpur. I, therefore, see no reason to grant prayer of the applicant to transfer petitions to Bombay.
17. The grievance of the applicant can be taken care of and it is possible for the Hon’ble Chief Justice to pass an appropriate order on administrative side. That, however, is no ground to transfer the matters from Nagpur to Bombay. I, therefore, see no reason to uphold the contention and see legitimate ground to grant relief as prayed by the applicant.
18. For the foregoing reasons, in my opinion, the application deserves to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. Notice discharged. In the facts and circumstances, however, there shall be no order as to costs.
Parties be given copies of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar/Private Secretary