ORDER
A.H. Joshi, J.
1. Heard Mr. P. S. Shendurnikar, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. V.C. Solshe, learned Advocate for respondent No. 3/caveator.
2. The petitioners were seeking transfer of change report bearing No. 590/2005 from the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Latur, to Assistant or Deputy Charity Commissioner of any other region. This prayer has been rejected by the Joint Charity Commissioner.
3. The grounds of transfer have been incorporated in para 15 of the application which are quoted below for ready reference:
It is respectfully submitted that applicants have no faith on judicial work of respondent No. 10. Respondent No. 10 is against applicants in his behaviour and favouring to respondent Nos. 1 to 4. On the dais itself respondent No. 10 used to threat and insult the applicants while attending his Court. Respondent No. 10 is demanding huge amount in presence of all applicants on dais itself on 4-9-2007. On next date on 19-11-2007 applicants were present but his advocate Mr. Ghodke was not present, so he filed application for adjournment. Then respondent No. 10 expressed that applicants cannot give demanded amount and he further said that others are paying more and hurriedly kept matter on next day i.e. on 20-11-2007 and on that day threatened that he will going to dismiss applicants case when third party application under Section 73A is pending before the Court. On the same day say was given by the other side and third party application is allowed on 20-11-2007 and matter is now for the say to change report, but threatening to dismiss the change report.
4. As it reveals, the transfer is seen to have been sought on four grounds namely:
(a) Threatening and insulting;
(b) The Presiding Officer is threatening to dismiss the change report.
(c) Demand of “Huge amount” i.e. money on the dais itself;
(d) Third party application has been hurriedly allowed, and;
5. Petitioner has placed reliance on two judgments, namely:
(1) Lalita Rajya Lakshmi and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr. . (2) Pushpa Devi Saraf and Anr. v. Jai Narain Parasrampuria and Ors. .
6. In first case from Patna High Court, there was demonstrable apprehension as the person having likelihood of interest or bias was that the wife of the Presiding Officer was a member of legislative assembly and she for the Government was shown to have interest in the litigation. The transfer application was entertained on doctrinal basis, though not due to warrant of facts of the case.
7. In second case, allegations more or less of similar nature as in present case were made. Honourable Supreme Court ruled against applicant on the allegations, however, for guarding the Presiding Officer against such scurrilous attitude, directed the District Judge concerned to transfer the case.
Now, this Court would like to advert to the factual background of the case at hand.
8. This Court would now analyse the fact of the matter i.e. four grounds taken in para from transfer application quoted adverbatim in para 3.
(a) Threatening and insulting & (b) Threatening to dismiss the change report.
9. Reference to threatening and insulting contained in paragraph 15 of the application at two places is extremely vague. Language of admonition if any used by Presiding Officer in the course of proceedings would be a matter of routine course if the parties are delaying the proceedings. For enabling higher forum to distinguish between language of admonition or cautioning with the language of threatening and insulting, adverbatim reproduction of the language used by the Presiding Officer was necessary. The petitioners have for reasons best known to them withheld this information from the Joint Charity Commissioner as well as from Court and have left their apprehensions for speculation. In this situation, these grounds cannot be considered and ruled.
(c) Demand of “Huge amount” i.e. money on the dais itself:
10. Allegation of demanding money itself is serious. Petitioners have termed it as demanding “Huge amount” suggesting thereby that had the demand not been “Huge amount”, they probably had no objection. The vagueness in narration leads an impression being carried that in order to add spice to the taste and flavour of allegations, the petitioners have incorporated these allegations.
Punctual reaction of said illegal demand particularly in relation to incident allegedly dated 4-9-2007 was expected, which the petitioner has failed. Normally a complaint ought to have been made as quickly as possible duly supported by application and/or affidavit of the Advocate appearing. Ordinarily aggrieved party would not have refrained from taking action by way of a complaint to higher forum and controlling officers. Absence of such action in reflex brings these allegations under grave cloud of suspicion.
(d) Third party application has been hurriedly allowed:
11. Admittedly, hearing of change report was expedited by the High Court, by order passed in Civil Application No. 8880/2007 by High Court. In order to avoid further delay, the Presiding Officer was bound to exert to save time, in matters of lesser importance. He would therefore be perfectly justified in exercising powers and jurisdiction while passing orders on such interlocutory applications. This order which was punctually passed appears to have been taken by the petitioner with a hurt, due to being ill-adviced. This ground of alleged hurry by the Presiding Officer by itself would not be sufficient ground for transfer of a case.
12. Winning or losing by one amongst the contesting parties is always a pre-told consequence. No grievance so far is seen to have been available about any incorrect recording of evidence or any bias or prejudice as recognized by law. The allegation that the Presiding Officer has openly told that he would dismiss change report also suffers from same vice of possibility exaggerating story as is noted by this Court while dealing first point.
13. The dispute in question pertains to change report about legality of election etc. As quoted above and in particular underlined for emphasis are extremely vague allegations. The abuses referred to therein and alleged demand of huge amount are extremely vague.
14. Considering the seriousness of contest and the gravity of persuasion, the Court became curious and desired to know the magnitude and volume of the work and wealth of the trust which might in a rarest of rare case allure a Presiding Officer who may be weak. The Court therefore made enquiry to learned Advocate for the petitioner about these matters. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has informed the Court that the Trust in question is a small educational institution. It runs a secondary school having 5th to 10th standards admitting about 300 students having 11 Teachers and is run in a rented building of average quality. It does not have assets and credit balances worth cognizance.
15. In the background that the allegations are extremely vague and the parties seem to have staked their egos and the petitioners are seen starving of due and wiser advise and counselling and must have even connived at wiser legal advise too. Result is obvious namely, they are constrained to file transfer application based on extremely vague allegations.
16. In this background, entire thrust of submissions of learned Advocate for the petitioner is on the laudable object that the justice should not only be done but it should appear to have done. On considering material that is brought on record in the form of pleadings all that can be concluded is that this clamour is wholly misplaced. Reliance on final order in both reported judgments also is not befitting the casualness and vagueness in the pleadings.
17. The order impugned cannot be interfered simply because the Joint Charity Commissioner hearing the transfer application has failed to record the finding on each and every point which is raised while rejecting the grounds for transfer. This Court is satisfied that no case for transfer was or is made out. Petition is dismissed.