Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
FAKRUDDIN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE PRINCIPAL, CONSOLIDATIONTRAINING INSTITUTE & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT10/05/1995
BENCH:
SAHAI, R.M. (J)
BENCH:
SAHAI, R.M. (J)
MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (4) 538 JT 1995 (7) 183
1995 SCALE (3)739
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.