B.J.Shethna, J. - (1.) All these petitions are disposed of by this common order as common question of law is involved in these petitions.
(2.) Petitioners are different but non-petitioners are same. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, nonpetitioner No.3 has preferred to file reply affidavit in one petition i.e., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4933/92. Learned counsel Shri Dave appears for the non-petitioner No. 3. Rajasthan High Court. Jodhpur and states that he is authorised to appear only in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4933/92.
(3.) Learned counsel Shri Bhandari for the petitioner, in all these petitions, has vehemently challenged the impugned order at Annex. 1 dated 18-5-1992 passed by the Rajasthan High Court. Jodhpur by which 12 criminal cases filed by the complainant, Rajasthan Rajya Jal Pradushan Niwaran and Niyantran Mandal against 12 different units of Jodhpur were transferred from the court of AddI. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1. Jodhpur to the Court of AddI. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Environment), Pali in exercise of powers by the High Court under section 407 Cr. P.C. for the disposal of the cases in accordance with law. He challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground that before passing the impugned order the petitioners were not given an opportunity of being heard. He submitted that this being an administrative order, the High Court ought to have heard all the petitioners before passing the impugned order. In support of his submission he has tried to rely upon the Division Bench decision of this Court reported as Deva & Anr. v. The High, Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and Ors. and submitted that the im 1 pugned order be quashed and set aside. According to him the case does not fall under section 407 of Cr. P.C. as none of the requirements of section 407 Cr. P.C. is attracted in the case for passing the order.;