This transfer application narrates the unpleasant attempt to scuttle proceedings on unwarranted apprehensions that seem to be unfounded and the allegations appear to have been made for creating an aura with hardly any element of bias or even an apprehension of bias as would be evident from the facts narrated hereinafter.    

It would be apt to mention at the outset that the transfer application was presented with allegations of the hearing of the complaint being influenced by the non-applicant no.1, and therefore the complaint may not be dealt with in a fair manner, as she is a sitting High Court Judge and is herself stationed at Madurai.  In view of the nature of the allegations made, apprehending any possible impact that might result in injustice, we had issued notice but with a precaution without any opinionated recitals in our order dated 02.08.2024 which is quoted hereunder:

“Issue notice.  Learned counsel has not filed copy of the proceedings before the DCDRC, Madurai in CC No. 327 of 2024.  The Applicant may apply for the order sheet and file it by the next date.

List on 23.9.2024.”

We were also careful enough to call upon the applicant’s counsel to bring on record the proceedings of the DCDRC Madurai to enable us to assess the allegations which have been made in the complaint regarding the claim of any influence being reflected in the conduct of the proceedings.

Today when the matter has been taken up, the applicant’s counsel did not turn up and Mr. Uttam Kumar, learned counsel, holding brief on behalf of the applicant’s counsel, made a statement that the matter should not be taken up and should be adjourned as the learned counsel is unwell.  Ordinarily, such statements are not disputed regarding the health of a lawyer but this was a case where the applicant had come up making allegations against a sitting High Court Judge.  Learned counsel Mr. Uttam Kumar who was appearing as a proxy counsel did not produce any prescription or otherwise any material to inspire confidence in the said statement made by him regarding the wellness of the learned counsel Mr. Jitendra Kumar who had appeared for the applicant when notices were issued. Mr. Uttam Kumar wanted his request to be noted and he did not advance any other submission.

There is one more striking feature that the vakalatnama on behalf of the applicant has been executed in the name of three advocates, namely, Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Mr. Alok Kumar and Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, whose signatures and names are available on the vakalatnama on record.  It is not understood as to why these counsel whose names appear in the vakalatnama did not or could not appear to assist the Commission and instead Mr. Uttam Kumar who is not on Vakalatnama was sent as a proxy to seek adjournment.  There is no explanation about the absence of the other two counsel and we therefore do not find any valid reason for any adjournment as in our considered opinion there appears to be a semblance of an excuse to get the matter adjourned without complying with the direction of filing the order sheet.

Heard Mr. R. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel for the non-applicant no.1 and Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, learned counsel for the non-applicant no.2.

The applicant before us is none else than the State Bank of India and consciously we had called upon the learned counsel vide our order dated 02.08.2024, which is almost 7 weeks ago, that the copy of the proceedings should be applied for and the entire order sheet should be filed by the next date.  No effort seems to have been made nor the order sheet has been filed by the applicant nor is there any explanation about the same being not procured and filed as directed.  Thus, there is a non-compliance of our order.

However, to the benefit of these proceedings we may point out that the non-applicant no.1 arrayed herein has been described in the array of parties through her power of attorney agent Mr. L. Dayakant Kevin Rai.  A reply on behalf of non-applicant no.1 through the affidavit of Mr. Rai has been served to the learned counsel for the applicant vide mail dated 17.09.2024 of which proof of service is on record.  The counter-affidavit is on record and has been filed in this Commission on 18.09.2024 and no rebuttal has been filed to the same by the applicant.

In this background and keeping in view the aforesaid facts, we do not find it expedient to adjourn the matter any longer.

There is yet another reason which has been pointed out by Mr. R. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel, who has appeared for the non-applicant no.1 that the order dated 02.08.2024 was simply issuing notices and calling upon the applicant to file the order sheet of the proceedings which has not been done.  On the other hand for some ulterior motive or any other reason the issuance of the notices was widely reported in the media and he has handed down the reports published in the Indian Express on 13.09.2024, the social media report on the site of Bar & Bench (Indian Legal News) of the same date, and in the channel News 24 also of the same date.  The printouts of the said news items on social media have been placed before the Bench.  We have gone through the contents thereof and we find that a review of the transfer application and the allegations made therein have been narrated and oral observations made have also been quoted.  It is thus seen that a trial by media seems to have been attempted and commenced which in our opinion ought not to have been occasioned in a case involving a responsible institution like the State Bank of India making allegations against a Judge.  It is not known as to who provided the entire copy of the transfer application with its allegations and the history of the litigation but in all probability it is obvious that the non-applicant no.1 has not done so.  The inference in all probability therefore is that it might have been done by those involved in the filing of the transfer application. 

We are therefore of the opinion that this transfer application deserves to be disposed of without giving any further liberty or unwarranted opportunity to the applicant to either publicise or attempt to take any undue advantage by attempting to bring in the media for influencing the proceedings before the District Consumer Forum in any way.  The right to free information or freedom of expression should not be exercised in a way which is aimed to paint a malicious canvas for reducing or impinging upon the reputation of somebody like a sitting High Court Judge to an extent so as to gain advantage or cause disadvantage in an impending litigation.  This transfer application has turned out to be an example of the same nature where the allegations have been culled out in a way for virtually scandalising the proceedings and attempting to blow it out of proportions which tends to lower the esteem of the pristine office held by a High Court Judge. The application is even otherwise neither maintainable and is a premature attempt to impede a judicial process for all the reasons hereinbefore and hereinafter.  

Before we proceed to delve on the issue any further, it may be pointed out that the non-applicant no.1 through the counter affidavit has brought on record the order sheet of the complaint before the District Commission.  The complaint was registered on 24.06.2024 and notices were issued fixing 15.07.2024.  The notices were served on the Bank and then the matter was posted for 23.07.2024 calling upon the Bank to file written version which was again repeated on 29.07.2024, 05.08.2024 and 09.08.2024.

This transfer application was prepared with an affidavit of Mr. J. Stanley Jones, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Tallakulam Branch, Madurai, dated 24.07.2024.  This application seems to have been dated 25.07.2024 but appears to have been re-dated as 30.07.2024 and registered on 31.07.2024.  It is thus evident that the transfer application was prepared hardly within 10 days of the date on which the Bank appeared before the District Commission on 15.07.2024.

It is not understood as to what facts were before the District Commission or in the proceedings before it within a brief gap of just 10 days so as to raise any apprehension in the mind of the Bank or prompt it to file this application so hastily when it appears form the order sheet that on 29.07.2024 the OP no.2 in the complaint had already filed the written version and the written version of the OP no.1 therein was yet to be filed.  Thus, the filing of the transfer application with such rapid speed within a short span of filing of the complaint indicates that the Bank without even verifying or any material to support the alleged apprehensions hurriedly filed this transfer application to block the proceedings before the District Commission.

What is more revealing are the facts stated in paragraphs 3 to 10 of the counter affidavit of the non-applicant no.1, which are extracted hereunder:

“3) I submit that the transfer petition filed by the petitioner/opposite party No.1 is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.

4) I submit that the transfer petition filed by the petitioner without any valid ground is liable to be rejected. Transfer Petition filed based on anticipation and mere apprehension is unsustainable in law. The petition filed without rising any valid reasons or ground by the petitioner seeking to transfer the case from the file of District Consumer Forum, Madurai to any other State and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5) I deny the very allegations made in paragraph No.1 of the petition alleging that the "complainant is the sitting judge in the High Court of Madras at Chennai and the complaint has been filed  through her Son who is an Advocate and Power of Attorney holder. The hearing is under influence of the Complainant and as such there is every likelihood that the petitioner will not be heard properly and justice will not be dispensed in a fair manner by the Learned District Forum, Madurai".

6) I strongly deny the very allegation of influence, which is made without any foundation or basis. The unsubstantiated allegation is made against the complainant in order to prevent the District Consumer Forum to proceed with matter. The above said allegations are liable to be rejected for the simple reason that on 24.06.2024 the District Consumer Forum has ordered notice on the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1. That on 15.07.2024 the petitioner/opposite party No.1 entered appearance through his counsel. Thereafter, that on 25.07.2024 the present application filed by the petitioner. Within 10 days from the date of hearing this petition is filed making false allegations. Immediately after filing of the complaint, the Petitioner has filed this petition making bald and reckless allegations. Admittedly the case has not adjourned for two hearings. In order to pressurize the complainant from proceeding with the complaint the petitioner has filed this petition in order to cause embrassment to my Principle. Merely because an aggrieved person is a sitting High Court Judge, the same will not preclude or debar her to file a Complaint before the judicial forum to redress her own grievances.

7)  I deny the allegations made in paragraph No.2 to 3 as false save those that are specifically admitted hereunder. Moreover in the above said paragraphs the petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 made averments regarding the merits and demerits of the case, which can be raised and decided after full-fledged trial.

8) I deny the very allegations that I failed to mention the earlier consumer case filed by me as false. The very reading of the paragraph No.5 and 6 of the complaint filed by me before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai would go to disclose the details regarding the earlier proceedings initiated by me against the builder and as such there is no iota of truth in the allegation made against me. The petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 has involved in unfair trade practice and committed Deficiency in Service and the same will be exposed once my complaint attains finality. Apprehending exposure of truth, the petitioner/opposite party No.1 has hurriedly filed this transfer application in order to stall and derail the proceedings to save the skin of the erring bank officials, who have committed the grievances raised in the complaint will put an end to an unfair trade practice by the bank officials.

9) It is pertinent to point out here that earlier I filed an application before the State Consumer Forum against builder and ultimately ended before this Hon'ble Forum on 10.07.2019. There is no whisper or allegation made against me alleging that I influenced the proceedings filed against the builder. My genuine grievances were redressed through the Court of Law. This time I have chosen to file this compliant before the District Consumer Forum on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction.

10) I submit that the complaint filed by me before the District Forum was taken on file in C.C. No.327 of 2024. I herewith annexed the Diary extracts regarding the various cases filed by different persons against different authorities which are taken on file in C.C. No.324/2024 to 330/2024. The conjoined reading of the diary extracts would go to confirm that in all the cases, a uniform procedure is adopted by the District Consumer Forum, Madurai to enable the opposite parties to file their reply or response within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of complaint.”

A perusal of the Transfer Application is virtually a narrative the merits of the claim and no statement of fact by any person having common prudence or having any knowledge of any fact of exercise of influence or any such impact being created by the Non-Applicant No.1 has been averred so as to even remotely construe an apprehension of bias.  There is no material or information disclosed in the Application, which only contains four paragraphs on three counts simply making a bald allegation that since the Non-Applicant No.1 is a High Court Judge, therefore, it would necessarily result in utilization of her office to influence the proceedings.  In fact, there is no narration of any incident or event or any fact averred which may lead to the conclusion that the Non-Applicant No.1 had attempted to influence the proceedings.

What is to be noted more is the progress of the complaint, as reflected in the order sheets filed by the Non-Applicant No.1.  The pleadings are not yet over and complete and no evidence has been led and the complaint has not yet even matured for hearing.  The allegations casting insinuations on a person holding a constitutional office only because the Non-Applicant No.1 happens to be a Judge cannot be a ground to exercise the jurisdiction of transfer. A tirade of discussions on a media platform without even verifying the facts as noted above cannot be approved and must not be encouraged by litigants either by themselves or through anybody.

The likelihood of any influence to the proceedings by the Non-Applicant No. -1 is, therefore, unfounded.

Apart from this, the complaint has been filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai.  The power to transfer cases pending before the District Commission to another District Commission is available under Section 48 of the Act before the State Commission.  The Applicant in the present case has invoked the provisions of Section 62 of the Act before this Commission praying for transferring the case to another State other than State of Tamilnadu.   

We have examined the entire facts as on record, the allegations contained as also the order sheets filed by the Non-Applicant No.1 and analysed the same with reasons recorded above.  We do not find any material or substance in the allegations made nor do we find any reason to prolong this Petition any further, as observed hereinabove.  The Transfer Application is, accordingly, rejected.