Judicial nature of bench-transfer orders under the Amalgamation Order; Supreme Court quashed an unsupported transfer decision.

An order of the Chief Justice transferring a writ petition between the Lucknow and Allahabad Benches under Paragraph 14 of the 1948 Amalgamation Order was held to be judicial or at least quasi-judicial because it affected forum choice, required hearing the affected party, and had to be decided on objective criteria; it was therefore amenable to correction under Article 136. The transfer order was also found unsustainable on merits because the stated reasons did not justify invoking the limited transfer power, convenience of parties could not displace the appellant's right as dominus litis, and the record did not support the conclusion that the hearing had not concluded. The transfer was quashed and the writ petition restored to the Lucknow Bench.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an order of the Chief Justice under Paragraph 14 of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 transferring a writ petition between the Lucknow and Allahabad Benches is a judicial or quasi-judicial order amenable to Article 136 of the Constitution of India; and (ii) whether the transfer order was valid on merits.

Issue (i): whether an order of the Chief Justice under Paragraph 14 of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 transferring a writ petition between the Lucknow and Allahabad Benches is a judicial or quasi-judicial order amenable to Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The power under Paragraph 14 concerns transfer of a case from one territorially distinct Bench to another and affects the litigant's choice of forum. Where rival claims are placed before the Chief Justice and the affected party is heard, the decision must be made on objective criteria and after investigation of whether transfer is permissible and warranted. Such a determination is not merely administrative. An adjudicating authority constituted by the State and invested with judicial functions falls within the concept of a Tribunal for the purpose of Article 136.

Conclusion: The order under Paragraph 14 is judicial or, at least, quasi-judicial in character and is amenable to correction under Article 136. The preliminary objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the transfer order was valid on merits.

Analysis: The transfer power under Paragraph 14 is confined to cases otherwise within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench and is meant to determine the place of hearing before the matter is concluded. The reasons recorded for transfer were unsustainable: the supposed lack of jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench was not a proper basis for transfer, the mere convenience of parties could not override the appellant's right as dominus litis, and the finding that the hearing had not concluded was contrary to the record. The transfer was therefore beyond the proper scope of the power and unsupported by valid reasons.

Conclusion: The transfer order was set aside and the matter was left to be proceeded with by the Lucknow Bench.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned transfer order was quashed, and the writ petition was restored to the Lucknow Bench for consideration in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A transfer order under Paragraph 14 of the 1948 Amalgamation Order is judicial or quasi-judicial where it determines rival claims after hearing the affected party, and the transfer power can be exercised only within its limited field and before the hearing of the matter is concluded.

---