Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Visakhapatnam vs Vankineni Ratna Kumar

This application is filed seeking transfer of AS No.48 of 1999 on the file of II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, to some other Court as the Presiding Officer bluntly refused to stay the operation of the lower Court order pending disposal of the statutory appeal and further it is the case of the petitioner that the Presiding Officer openly proclaimed that in tenancy matters she is not inclined to grant any interim stay. It is better for the advocates to approach the District Judge and see that the tenancy matters are not posted before her.

As the allegations levelled against the Presiding Officer are of serious nature, I called for report by my order dated 23-3-1999. The Officer concerned submitted her report dated 7-4-1999. I have gone through the report. The explanation offered by the officer concerned is very much astonishing. There is no coherence in the report sent by her. The officer has forgotten the fact that the judgment of the trial Court is not sacrosanct statute provided an appeal to the aggrieved party for canvassing the correctness of the judgment of the trial Court. In such an event it is the bounden duty of the Court to safeguard the interest of the parties during the pendency of the appeal. From the report it is seen that the other side also entered appearance in this case. Even assuming that as per the orders of the lower Court the petitioner has to deliver possession of the petition schedule site within two months from the date of decree i.e., 18-1-1999, in other words by 17-3-1999, the petitioner filed appeal on 4-3-1999 and when the other side is also before this Court, the officer is having ample lime to dispose of the IA filed pending disposal of the appeal. Without doing so, she simply ordered notice and posted the matter to 21-4-1999 i.e., after expiry of the time granted by the Court below for handing over the possession of the site. This is nothing but arbitrary action on the part of the officer concerned. Further, in this report she poses a question to this Court in this manner - "Without hearing the other side simply on the ground that the petitioner is a tenant, how can this Court grant any relief." This is nothing but placing the cart before the horse. Under the statute the Court given ample powers to safeguard the interest of both the parties by way of passing interim orders during the pendency of the appeal. The Officer would not have given such a reply to this Court. Further, as pointed out by me earlier, the other side has already come on record. If the officer is not inclined to pass interim order, nothing prevented her by giving some time to the respondent to file counter and dispose of the IA, within the time stipulated by the lower Court for vacation of the premises. But wantonly she posted the IA, from 4-3-1999 to 21-4-1999. This type of conduct is unexpected of a Judicial Officer. The Officer is warned not to repeat such type of performance in future. If the Officer comes to the adverse notice of this Court, perhaps a serious view will be taken against her.

In the light of the report sent by the Officer concerned, I have to give credence to the contention of the petitioner. !f once I accept this submission made by the petitioner in the affidavit seeking transfer of the appeal, I must see that justice is not only done, but it should appear to be done. Hence I have no option except to transfer this case from the file of II Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Eluru. The District Judge, Eluru, is directed to dispose of the IA 1450 of 1999 in AS No.48 of 1999 within one month from the date of receipt of the order on merits. Till the disposal of the IA, by the District Judge, the stay granted by this Court against the orders of the trial Court shall be continued.

In the result, the Transfer CMP is allowed. No costs.