HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 815 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Dr. Krishna Singh, learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent no.s 1 and 2 while Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.s 3 to 8 which is taken on record. 2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has sought a direction to transfer the revision suit No.0028/2025 (Rajendra Kumar Vs. Sundara Devi) pending before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh to any other District. 3. It has been submitted that the petitioner is an old lady, who is suffering from heart disease and the opposite party No.s 6 to 8 filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh where the petitioner is opposite party. It is submitted that when the case was listed before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh on 30.7.2025 the revisionists in the revision have misbehaved and manhandled with the petitioner, who is opposite party in the revision. Another similar incident took place on 31.7.2025. Both the incidents were reported to Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh. In the aforesaid circumstances, it was stated that petitioner and her counsel fear for their life and safety on account of the actions of the private respondents and, therefore, move an application or transfer. He submits that there is only one Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh in a District. The petitioner has approached this Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manoj Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Sundara Devi .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Pratapgarh And Others .....Respondent(s) Court stating therein that the case be transfer to any other District. 4. The matter has been opposed by the respondents stating that they firstly deny the allegations leveled in the petition. Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents has denied the allegations of the petitioner and submits that no ground was made out for allowing the application for transfer. 5. Considering the rival submissions, it is noticed that the only ground raised by the petitioner for transfer of the revision out of the District Pratapgarh is that they fear for their life from the private respondents who are revisionist in the case pending before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh. Apart from the above, we find that there is no allegations against the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh which may require transfer of the case outside the District. With regard to the grievance raised by the petitioner we find hat the same can be redressed in case adequate security is provided to the petitioner and also the counsel appearing on her behalf. This aspect of the matter was considered by Supreme Court in the case of Mahender Chawla and others Vs. Union of India and others, 2018 Law Suit (SC) 135 where following observations are made:- "34) One thing which emerges from the aforesaid discussion is that there is a paramount need to have witness protection regime, in a statutory form, which all the stakeholders and all the players in the criminal justice system concede. At the same time no such legislation has been brought about. These are the considerations which had influenced this Court to have a holistic regime of witness protection which should be considered as law under Article 141 of the Constitution till a suitable law is framed. 35) We, accordingly, direct that : (i) This Court has given its imprimatur to the Scheme prepared by respondent No.1 which is approved hereby. It comes into effect forthwith. (ii) The Union of India as well as States and Union Territories shall enforce the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 in letter and spirit. (iii) It shall be the ‘law’ under Article 141/142 of the Constitution, till the enactment of suitable Parliamentary and/or State Legislations on the WRIB No. 815 of 2025 2 subject. (iv) In line with the aforesaid provisions contained in the Scheme, in all the district courts in India, vulnerable witness deposition complexes shall be set up by the States and Union Territories. This should be achieved within a period of one year, i.e., by the end of the year 2019. The Central Government should also support this endeavour of the States/Union Territories by helping them financially and otherwise. 6. It is in pursuance of the directions of Supreme Court in the case of Mahender Chawla (Supra) that a government order has been issued by the State of U.P. on 4.4.2019 where a committee has been constituted in all the District headquarters and wherever the litigants are facing any thereat of security pertaining to on going litigation they are at liberty to move an application for providing security and the said committee duly considers the applications and passes necessary orders. Accordingly, we find that the interest of the petitioner will be secured in case directions are issued for consideration of her application under Section 2 (c) of Witness Protection Scheme 2018. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the grievances with regard to her security by moving application before the said committee within next ten days. In case, the application is made the committee shall consider the case of the petitioner and pass necessary orders thereon in their next meeting. August 29, 2025 RKM. WRIB No. 815 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench