The Bombay High Court has said transfer of proceedings from a judicial officer cannot be done on mere allegation by one party, and dismissed a petition of the Lilavati Hospital's trust founder alleging bias against the Charity Commissioner.

A single bench of Justice Sharmila Deshmukh last month refused to transfer the proceedings pertaining to a dispute between the trustees from the Charity Commissioner to any other judicial officer, noting there was no reasonable apprehension of bias or prejudice.

The HC said passing of an adverse order cannot be the foundation for seeking transfer of proceedings.

"It is necessary to ensure for securing the ends of justice that a mere allegation is differentiated from an apprehension and what is required is a reasonable apprehension. An absence of congenial atmosphere cannot be a ground for transfer," it said.

The court dismissed the petition filed by the Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust founder Charu Mehta and permanent trustees Rajesh Mehta and Prashant Mehta, seeking transfer of all proceedings pertaining to the trust from the Charity Commissioner to any other judicial officer while alleging bias.

The petitioners are embroiled in a dispute with the other trustees over control of the trust and the Lilavati Hospital.

"In my view the apprehension of the petitioners lacks foundation," the judge said.

The adverse orders passed by the Charity Commissioner against the petitioners cannot be said to be the result of a "pre-judged mind and cannot form the basis for reasonable apprehension that justice will not be done by the Charity Commissioner while adjudicating the proceedings," the HC said.

The court noted that transfer of proceedings from a court or a quasi-judicial officer is usually viewed as a suspicion being cast on the conduct of proceedings by the judicial officer and hence transfer cannot be based on mere allegation.

Earlier this year, the Charity Commissioner provisionally accepted certain change reports of the trust and initiated suo motu (on its own) inquiry against the trustees including the petitioners and pending inquiry suspended the trustees except Charu Mehta.

Mehta and the two other trustees filed a petition in the HC, challenging the Charity Commissioner's order.

The HC in September stayed the order, noting the Charity Commissioner had acted contrary to the provisions of law.

The petitioners claimed the Charity Commissioner initiated suo motu inquiry even when there was no such prayer from the other side.

The plea alleged the Charity Commissioner had held a private meeting with lawyers of the other side, which casts a serious doubt about impartiality.

The respondent trustees claimed the petitioners habitually file transfer applications when faced with adverse orders and those applications have been rejected in the past.

The HC observed that even if the orders passed are not in accordance with law, at the most it can be said to be a perverse order capable of being corrected by the higher forum.

"However, the passing of such an order itself cannot be said to be the result of a predetermined and prejudiced mind," the court said.

The allegations levelled by the petitioners, if viewed, in isolation would not indicate any basis for apprehension of bias and even if viewed cumulatively it would at the most amount to passing of adverse orders, the HC said.

"The judicial orders passed by the authorities legitimately, though may or may not be corrected by the higher forums, cannot lead to an inference of pre-judged and/or pre-determined and/or biased mind against the litigant," it said.

Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by The Telegraph Online staff and has been published from a syndicated feed.