O.K.Seth, J. - (1.) Mr. Manu Saxena was permitted to address the Court on the prayer of Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents in respect of this transfer application on behalf of the opposite party. He pointed out from the counter affidavit that Smt. Zohra Begum the petitioner No. 1 died on 20th July, 1998 whereas this petition was moved on 27th July, 1998. Therefore, this petition could not be maintained. In support of its contention, he had pointed out from Annexure CA-1 that the appallent-petitioners had made an application in the appeal intimating the Court that the appellant No. 1/1 died on 20th July, 1998.
(2.) But in the said application, it has been pointed out that the appellant No. 1/2 to 1/7 the heirs of Smt. Zohra Begum are already on record as appellants. In this petition, the said heirs of Smt. Zohra Begum are petitioners No. 1/2 to 1/7. Thus even if Smt. Zohra Begum is dead, the point raised by Mr. Manu Saxena cannot be acceded to. The petition may be disrnissed as against Smt. Zohra Begum, petitioner No. 1/1, but it cannot be dismissed as against the other petitioners, namely, the petitioners No. 1/2 to 1/7. Therefore, this point does not help Mr. Saxena in opposing maintainability of the application of transfer.
(3.) The other ground he had pointed out is that the officer concerned before whom the appeal is pending and against whom allegation had been made had since been transferred. So far as this point is concerned, it may be discussed at a later stage in this order.;