Heard learned counsel for petitioner seeking transfer of OA 356/2012. Since the said matter has already been heard by the lucknow bench on 20.01.2013 and also granted the bail to the applicant on certain conditions and the applicant is therefore is on bail. He is seeking transfer only on the ground that after grant of bail now he is residing in Delhi and therefore, it will be inconvenient to the petitioner to go to Lucknow. We found from the application that the address of the petitioner is given as ‘Care/of others. Be that it may be, we feel the applicant's presence on all the dates may not be required and whenever the OA is taken up, it will be heard and hearing even if take some longer time because it is arising out of the Court Martial proceedings, but that is not such inconvenient to the petitioner. Therefore, this application for transfer is rejected in the fact situation.
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner sought transfer of Original Application (OA) 356/2012 from the Lucknow bench to another forum, citing inconvenience due to residing in Delhi after being granted bail. The OA had already been heard by the Lucknow bench on 20.01.2013, where bail was granted to the applicant on certain conditions. The petitioner is currently on bail and requests transfer on the ground of inconvenience in attending proceedings at Lucknow.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Original Application (OA) 356/2012 should be transferred from the Lucknow bench to another forum on the ground of petitioner’s changed residence and alleged inconvenience.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court noted that the petitioner’s address was given as “Care/of others,” which raised questions about the claimed inconvenience. The court observed that the petitioner’s presence may not be required on all hearing dates and that the OA, arising from Court Martial proceedings, might take longer to be heard. However, the court found that this did not amount to sufficient inconvenience to justify transfer. Consequently, the court rejected the transfer application based on the facts and circumstances presented.
Holding and Implications
The application for transfer of OA 356/2012 is rejected.
This decision means the Original Application will continue to be heard by the Lucknow bench. No new precedent was established, and the ruling directly affects only the petitioner’s request for transfer, denying it on grounds of insufficient inconvenience.
Lt. Col. Ranjodh Singh v. Union Of India & Ors.
Please subscribe to download the judgment.
Comments