Dr. MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and 2 others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order passed by the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed an application seeking the transfer of a writ petition from a specific Bench. The petitioner had requested the transfer on the grounds that a previous Division Bench had declined to hear the matter based on propriety. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the dismissal of the transfer application by the Chief Justice was legally sustainable and whether the petitioner had a valid basis for seeking such a transfer. The Supreme Court held that the prayer for transfer was not supported by any provision of law or the Constitution of Pakistan. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, finding the impugned order of the Chief Justice to be unexceptionable as it pertained to the prerogative of the Court in assigning cases. The judgment reinforces the principle that the transfer of cases between Benches is a matter of judicial prerogative and cannot be claimed as a matter of right without a sound legal basis.
- Is the transfer of a writ petition from one Bench to another a matter of right for a litigant?
- Can a litigant demand the transfer of a case based solely on a previous Bench's decision to recuse itself on grounds of propriety?
- Is an order passed by the Chief Justice of a High Court regarding the assignment of cases subject to interference when it is based on judicial prerogative?
' QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.---This petition has arisen from the order dated 17-9-2001 passed by the learned Chief Justice, Lahore High Court dismissing an application for transfer of Writ Petition No,2146 of 2001 from a particular Bench. The application was dismissed with the following observations:-- "The sought for transfer of the captioned writ petition on the ground that a Division Bench comprising Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry (former Judge) and Mian Saqib Nisar, J., had declined to hear the same on account of propriety is misconceived because that observation was made only by the Senior Member of the Bench and is accordingly hereby dismissed."
2. The prayer for transfer of the matter is not backed by any law or the Constitution and in any event the impugned order being prerogative-related is unexceptionable. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave refused.