FAKRUDDIN versus THE PRINCIPAL, CONSOLIDATION TRAINING INSTITUTE AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 389 · Decided: 10-05-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI, S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

" 
FAKRUDDIN 
v. 
THE PRINCIPAL, CONSOLIDATION TRAINING INSTITUTE 
AND ORS. 
MAY 10, 1995 
[R.M. SAHA! AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Judicial propriety-Writ petition decided by a Bench-One of the Judges 
was counsel to the opposite party, before his elevation-Even after pointing 
A 
B 
out this Jae• he chose to decide the case-Neither justified nor healthy for the C 
institution-Merits of the case is immaterial-Should have been refen-ed to 
some other Benclt-Order set aside and matter remitted back to the High 
Court. 
I 
In this Appeal, the dispute related to allotment of 'Chaks' in con-
solidation proceedings. However the dispute did not raise any question of D 
title. The High Court dismissed the Writ petition. Hence this appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal and setting aside the High Court's order, 
this Court 
HELD : 1. The dispntes related to allotment of 'Chaks' in consolida-
tion 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 this Court 
E 
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 F 
bis 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 he taken notice of. But where 
it was specifically pointed out, and the Jndge was apprised of it, yet he 
chose to decide the case, such an act with party to judge is neither justified G 
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. (390-H, 391-A-C] 
2. 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 H 
389 
390 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A is more important. A decision of a case one or other way may effect 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 the order passed by the High Court is set aside and 
B tl1e matter is remitted 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. [391-D-E] 
c 
D 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5791 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.11.90. of the Patna High Court 
in C.W.J.C. No. 4498 of 1990. 
H.L. Srivastava, S.M. Rai, B.M. Sharma and T.N. Singh for thtt 
Appellant. 
B.B. Singh for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
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 
F 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. 
G 
H 
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 proceed-
FAKRUDDIN v. CONSOLIDATION TRNG. INSTI. 
391 
ings. Such a dispute does not raise any question of title. No exception, A 
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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.