Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:472 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1313 of 2024 Petitioner :- Jagdeesh Respondent :- The Distt. Deputy Director Of Consolidation / D.M. Distt. Bahraich And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Naveen Chandra Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dhananjay Kumar Maurya,Himanshu Pathak Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Anshuman Singh learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.3/caveator. Under challenge is the order dated 20.11.2024 whereby the application for transfer preferred by the petitioner did not find favour with the respondent no.1 which resulted in its rejection. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the manner in which the proceedings are being conducted by the respondent no.2 has created a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that he will not be able to get justice from the said court and that he had no faith in the said Court and it is in this context, that the transfer application was moved, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure no.11. It is further urged that without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the transfer application has been rejected by the respondent no.1 and in this view of the matter, it is urged that once a bona fide apprehension had been formed in the mind of the petitioner that he will not get justice from the Court concerned, consequently, this aspect has not been appropriately considered by the Court while rejecting the transfer application. Sri Anshuman Singh learned counsel appearing for the caveator submits that the revision is pending before the respondent no.2 wherein an interim order is subsisting in favour of the petitioner. Only with the sole purpose of delaying the proceedings the application for transfer was moved and it has rightly been dismissed as no cogent ground is made out and, thus, writ petition also deserves to be dismissed. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record. From a perusal of transfer application which is on record as Annexure No.11 and more particularly taking note of the paragraphs-4 to 6, apparently, it appears that vague allegations have been levelled and the manner and circumstances in which the transfer application can be considered has been noticed by this Court in Vinod Kumar Singh v. Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. Thru. its Chairman; 2022:AHC-LKO:66114 passed in Writ B no. 707 of 2022 dated 16.11.2022 which was further considered by this Court in a recent pronouncement in Nusrat Ali vs Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow And Others; 2024:AHC-LKO:82867 passed in WRIT-C No.-10655 of 2024 dated 11.12.2024. Considering the aforesaid dictum where manner in which the grounds for transfer can be considered, if applied in the instant case would reveal that apart from making bald allegations nothing has been brought on record to substantiate that any bona fide apprehension regarding the conduct or the working of the Court could be formed. Since the grounds in the transfer were not sufficient, the same did not find favour with respondent no.1 who had rejected application, this Court does not find that there is any patent illegality in the order which may persuade this Court to entertain the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is primarily a discretionary jurisdiction. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is meritless and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Harshita Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench