VINOY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the orders passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi dated 13.2.2001 transferring a number of criminal cases for disposal to the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, the petitioner Advocate, representing the accused persons in three of such transferred cases, filed a writ petition in the High Court praying for quashing of the said order. It was contended that by the transfer of the cases, the speedy trial of the accused has been hampered and that the order has been passed in a casual manner.

(2.) The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court holding that the petitioner being an Advocate had no locus standi to challenge the legality of the order by way of a writ petition.

(3.) The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence, that the Court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries are caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest, the Court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the Court for relief.