JUDGMENT
G. Yethirajulu, J.
1. These applications have been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendants in O.S. Nos. 139 of 1999 and plaintiff in O.S. No. 77 of 1998 respectively pending on the file of the A.P. Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad (‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) for transfer of the suits from the Tribunal to any other Tribunal or Court for further trial and disposal.
2. O.S. No. 139 of 1999 was filed by the Jamia Mosque, B. Kothakota, Chittoor District, represented by its Mulhavalli-Pagonda Mahaboob Saheb for recovery of rents from Sri Pasupula Fakruddin @ Bada Fakruddin, and one V. Basha for the period from June, 1997 to August 1999 for use and occupation of wooden bunks situated on the wakf property and also for damages. O.S. No. 77 of 1998 was filed by one Mr.Pasapala Shahnawaz against two brothers by name Vadapalle Reddy Mahaboob Sab @ Peervan Sab @ Pedda Reddy Sab, Vadapalle Reddy Mahaboob Sab @ Chinna Reddy Sab, the Jamia Masjid, Santha Bazar Street, B. Kothakota, Chittoor District and the Wakf Board represented by its Executive Officer/Chairman, Hyderabad. The Tribunal completed recording of evidence of the witnesses in O.S. No. 77 of 1998 in the year 2001 and the matter was posted for hearing for arguments. At that stage, the then Presiding Officer of the Tribunal felt that the suits O.S. No. 139 of 1999 and 77 of 1998 are inter-related. He therefore decided to proceed with the trial in O.S. No. 139 of 1999 also. When the trial was about to take place, the Presiding Officer was transferred and his successor Sri G.S. Basha assumed the office.
3. The petitioners in Tr.C.M.P. No. 440 of 2002 are the defendants in O.S. No. 139 of 1999. The petitioner in Tr.C.M.P. No. 459 of 2002 is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 77 of 1998. According to them, the present Presiding Officer of the Tribunal hails from B. Kothakota Village and he knows both the parties in the suits, who are also residents of B. Kothakota Village, Chittoor District. The Presiding Officer Basha has got properties in the said village and he practiced as an Advocate at Madanapalli Court. He expressed embarrassment to proceed with the trial of the suits, but proceeded with the trial in O.S. No. 139 of 1999. The petitioners contended that the Counsel appearing for the plaintiff in O.S. No. 139 of 1999 and for the defendants in O.S.No. 77 of 1998 is a close friend of the Presiding Officer hailing from the same village and practised at Madanapalli Court. The said Counsel also is an Advocate for the Presiding Officer in several matters including a second appeal covered by S.A. No. 796 of 2001 pending on the file of this Court. According to the petitioners, in Tr.C.M.P. No. 440 of 2002, they filed a Memo before the Tribunal on 5-9-2002 to transfer O.S. No. 139 of 1999 to any other Court or competent Tribunal, but to their surprise the matter stood posted to 12-11-2002 for recording of the evidence on their behalf on payment of costs of Rs. 100/-. The petitioners contended that when there is a cloud of doubt kept in the mind of the parties, the Tribunal ought to have transferred the suits on its own. Since the Presiding Officer is proceeding with the trial, they have reasonable apprehension in their mind that justice will not be done to them before the present Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. Hence the applications for transfer of the suits O.S.Nos. 139 of 1999 and 77 of 1998.
4. The Jamia Mosque, which is the first respondent in Tr.C.M.P. No. 440 of 2002 and third respondent in Tr.C.MP. No. 459 of 2002 resisted the applications with the following averments:
5. The allegation that the Presiding Officer is having properties at B. Kothakota Village, Chittoor District and is a close friend of one of the Counsel for the parties in the suits viz., friend of the Counsel appearing for the plaintiff in O.S. No. 139 of. 1999 and defendants in O.S. No. 77 of 1998 are absolutely irrelevant and immaterial. The first respondent contended that they engaged the services of a Senior Counsel Sri R. Radhakrishna Reddy from Madanapalli Bar, in addition to the Advocate on Record to conduct trial of the suits on its behalf. There is no basis for the petitioners’ apprehension that the Presiding Officer would show favour to respondent No. 1. Mere apprehension of bias can never be a ground for transfer of a suit. No. specific instances have been cited to show that the Presiding Officer exhibited any kind of bias. The petitioners failed to show any bias for transfer of the proceedings from the Tribunal to the other Tribunal or Court. The applications are therefore liable to be dismissed with costs.
6. The point for consideration is whether there is any proof of bias to the Presiding Officer and whether the suits are liable to be transferred from the Tribunal to any other Court?
7. The trial of O.S. No. 77 of 1998 was admittedly completed in the year 2001, The plaintiff-mosque’s evidence in O.S. No. 139 of 1999 was also completed on 31-7-2002. It was only on 5-9-2002 when the case was posted for defendants’ evidence; they filed a Memo seeking transfer of the case. As per Section 84 of the Wakf Act, 1995 (‘the Act’ for brevity), the Tribunal shall hold the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and shall as soon as practicable, on the conclusion of the hearing of such matter give its decision in writing and furnish a copy of such decision to each of the parties of such dispute. In the light of the statutory mandate under Section 84, the Presiding Officer has every justification to insist on the parties to complete their evidence as expeditiously as possible to enable him to give a decision on the point in issue at the earliest possible time.
8. The present Presiding Officer of the Tribunal assumed charge in the middle of 2002. The evidence of the plaintiff was completed on 31-7-2002 and the matter was posted on 5-9-2002 for defendants’ evidence. The petitioners filed a Memo seeking transfer of the suits. The only ground , on which they are seeking transfer is that the parties as well as the Counsel are acquainted with the Presiding Officer.
9. The petitioners 1 and 2 in Tr.C.M.P. No. 440 of 2002 are vegetable vender and owner of a tea stall respectively whereas the petitioner in Tr.C.M.P. No. 459 of 2002 is the President of Dudekula Seva Sangam, Simham Street, B. Kothakota, Chittoor District. They do not belong to the occupation of the Presiding Officer. They did not mention in the affidavit as to how the Presiding Officer got acquaintance with them. The present Presiding Officer was appointed as a District Munsif in the year 1985 and he was posted to the Tribunal in the year 2002. Prior to posting as the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, he worked in various parts of the State and there will not be any scope for him to frequently meet the members of the Madanapalli Bar and get influenced by the members of the Bar or general public. The petitioners did not cite any specific instance of bias on the Presiding Officer. The Officer’s insistence on the parties to get ready in the matters cannot be treated as an act of bias. Now-a-days it is becoming very difficult for the Presiding Officers of the Courts to secure the presence of the Counsel and make them ready with their witnesses for the conclusion of the trial of the suits. If the application of the petitioners is accepted, it becomes very difficult for the parties to get the Counsel of their confidence. The mere personal acquaintance of the Presiding Officer to the Counsel by itself is not a ground for transfer of the suit.
10. The High Court has every power to transfer the matters pending in any Tribunal or Court by exercising the powers under Section 24 C.P.C., either suo motu or at the request of either of the parties. When it is at the request of either of the parties, the High Court may transfer the matter only when there is sufficient material to show that the party is not likely to get justice before the Presiding Officer of a particular Court and it is essential in the interest of justice to transfer the matter to any other Court.
11. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Jamia Mosque submitted that under Section 85 of the Act there is a bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain the suits of the above nature and the Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad is the only Tribunal created by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under the Act, therefore, the suits cannot be transferred to any other Court or Tribunal.
12. I have already observed in the foregoing discussion that the petitioners did not make out any case to prove their contention that there is every likelihood of bias to the Presiding Officer due to his acquaintance with the parties and their Counsel. Unless there are specific instances of bias, unless the Presiding Officer has personal interest in the subject-matter of the suits, he cannot be branded as a biased Officer. This would demoralize the Officers in the eye of the public and it becomes very difficult for such officers to work in a free and unbiased atmosphere. The mere apprehension of the petitioners on imaginary grounds cannot be accepted.
13. In the light of the above circumstances, I do not find any force in the applications for transfer of the suits OS Nos. 139 of 1999 and 77 of 1998. The petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
14. The petitioners shall adduce evidence before the Tribunal. If they notice any kind of bias in conducting the trial of the suits, they are at liberty to approach this Court with specific instances of bias, if any, for consideration and appropriate orders.