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.