HAKEEMUDDIN AND ORS. Vs. INCHARGE DISTRICT JUDGE, AZAMGARH AND ORS.
LAWS(ALL)-1992-4-106
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on April 25,1992

Hakeemuddin Appellant
VERSUS
Incharge District Judge, Azamgarh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

D.S. Sinha, J. - (1.) CIVIL Appeal No. 343 of 1986 Mohd. Nairn and Ors. v. Hakeemuddin and Ors. is pending in the court of I Additional District Judge, Azamgarh which is, indisputably, presided over by Sri Sushil Kumar.
(2.) FOR the reasons contained in the transfer application, moved before the District Judge, Azamgarh, a true copy whereof is Annexure -4 to the affidavit filed in support of the transfer application filed in this Court, the applicants, who figure as Respondents in the aforesaid appeal, sought transfer of the appeal from the file of I Additional District Judge, Azamgarh to the file of another Additional District Judge. The transfer application came up for consideration on 13th November, 1991. on which date the Court of District Judge was presided over by Sri Sushil Kumar himself in the capacity of Incharge District Judge, and he dismissed the transfer application of the applicants by the order which runs as under: This is an application for transferring the case from the court of I Additional District Judge, Azamgarh. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant. I do not find any substance in this application. Rejected Sd. Sushil Kumar I/C District Judge Azamgarh.
(3.) AS the transfer application was directed against Sri Sushil Kumar himself he should have refrained from deciding the same while exercising powers of Incharge District Judge. Indeed, he was disqualified to decide the transfer application. No Judge is qualified to try a cause to which he is a party or in which he is personally interested. Sri Sushil Kumar was a party to and will be deemed to have had interest in the adjudication of the transfer application as the same was founded on allegations against him by deciding the transfer application he violated the well -established judicial norm and the legislative mandate contained in Section 38 of the Bengal, Agra & Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 which ordains the Presiding Officer of a court not to try any suit or proceeding to which he is a party or in which he is personally interested. The order passed by the judge smacks foul and has a tinge of judicial anarchy.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.