Fakruddin
Vs. The Principal, Consolidation Training Institute & Ors [1995] INSC 274 (10 May 1995)
Sahai,
R.M. (J) Sahai, R.M. (J) Majmudar S.B. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (4) 538 JT 1995 (7) 183 1995 SCALE (3)739
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
THE
10TH DAY OF MAY, 1995 Present:
Hon'ble
Mr. Justice R.M.Sahai Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.B. Majmudar Mr. H.L. Srivastava,
Mr. S.M. Rai, Mr. B.M. Sharma, Mr. T.N. Singh, Advs. for the appeallant Mr. B.B.
Singh, Adv. for the Respondents.
O R D
E R
The
following Order of the Court was delivered:
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL
APPEAL NO. 5791 OF 1995 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4422 of 1991] Fakruddin
V. The Principal, Consolidation Training Institute & Ors.
O R D
E R
Leave
granted.
Justice
should not only be done but seem to be done.
That
is the basic structure on which confidence and faith in the institution rests. The
judiciary from the bottom in the hierarchy to the apex at the top commands
respect because of its impartiality and objectivity. When a judge directs a
case to be listed before another Court or Bench, as he knows one or the other
party, it is not because any statutory law precludes him from hearing and
deciding it but the propriety is practised and observed to exclude even the remotest
possibility of any misgiving or doubt about the impartiality of the judge as
even if he is just and fair and his decision is correct yet it may not be
satisfying.
What
happened in this case is not only unfortunate but to compound it further the
learned Judge even when apprised that he was the counsel for the respondent
when he was at the bar did not observe that minimum norm which is expected to
be observed even by quasi-judicial authorities.
The
dispute related to allotment of 'Chaks' in consolidation proceedings. Such a
dispute does not raise any question of title. No exception, therefore, could be
taken to the order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition in limine.
But what has compelled us to interfere with the order of the High Court is that
it was decided by a Bench of which one of the judges was a counsel for the
respondents before his elevation. It may happen at times that a judge who had
appeared for a party before his elevation may have forgotten about it. An order
passed in ignorance of such factual error may not be taken notice of.
But
where it was specifically pointed out, as claimed in the Special Leave
Petition, that the learned Judge was apprised of it and yet he chose to decide
the case, is neither justified nor healthy for the institution. The result of
the decision is immaterial. May be that another Bench hearing the case may have
come to same conclusion. In fact this Court might have refused to interfere
with the order relating to allotment of 'Chakas', but it is not the correctness
or otherwise of the order but the sense of justice, the public glare in which a
judge is exposed every moment which is more important. A decision of a case one
or other way may affect an individual but a decision by a judge who had appeared
for one of the parties irrespective of the stakes, the result and the
consequences is of much significance from a social point of view. Therefore,
irrespective of the merits of the case we set aside the order passed by the
High Court and remit the case back to the High Court for deciding it afresh on
merits in accordance with law. Any observation made in this order shall not be
taken as deciding the rights of parties.
The
appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Back
