1994 (8) TMI 310 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of personal mala fide against the appellant.
2. Transfer of the writ petition from one Bench to another.
3. Maintainability of the writ petition without exhausting alternate statutory remedies.
4. Apprehension of bias and the right to a fair trial.
5. Conduct of judges and propriety of judicial communications.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Personal Mala Fide Against the Appellant:
The first respondent challenged the assessment order confirming a demand for sales tax of Rs. 2,04,13,895 and similar writ petitions for a total liability of Rs. 20 crores, alleging personal mala fide against the appellant, the Chief Minister of Haryana. The appellant, understandably, desired to defend himself against these allegations. However, the Court noted that allegations of mala fides alone do not justify a particular Bench being unable to hear the case.

2. Transfer of the Writ Petition from One Bench to Another:
The writ petition was initially listed before the Tax Bench but was transferred to the Bench presided over by the then Acting Chief Justice, S.S. Sodhi, J. The appellant argued that this transfer indicated bias. However, the Court observed that the transfer was due to procedural reasons and not due to any interest shown by S.S. Sodhi, J. in hearing the matter. The Court found no evidence to suggest that the transfer was improper or that S.S. Sodhi, J. was biased.

3. Maintainability of the Writ Petition Without Exhausting Alternate Statutory Remedies:
A preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the writ petition since the first respondent had not exhausted alternate statutory remedies. The Division Bench did not consider this objection and directed arguments on merits. The Court did not delve deeply into this issue but focused more on the procedural aspects and the allegations of bias.

4. Apprehension of Bias and the Right to a Fair Trial:
The appellant argued that the transfer of the case to the Bench presided over by S.S. Sodhi, J. created a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Court reiterated that the right to a fair trial is guaranteed under the Constitution and that a litigant is entitled to adjudication by a judge who is unbiased. However, the Court found that the appellant's apprehension of bias was not reasonable. The case had been listed before S.S. Sodhi, J.'s Bench from 3.8.92 to 21.10.92 without any objection, and the transfer application was made only after substantial hearings had occurred. The Court concluded that there was no reasonable suspicion of bias and that the application for transfer was an attempt to avoid the Bench headed by S.S. Sodhi, J.

5. Conduct of Judges and Propriety of Judicial Communications:
The Court expressed concern over the conduct of G.R. Majithia, J., who sought explanations from the Registrar (Judicial) and wrote letters regarding the transfer of the case. The Court found this conduct inconsistent with the restraint expected of a high judicial office. The Court emphasized that judges should remain unruffled and calm in the midst of contending forces and should not be dragged into such matters.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the civil appeal and the transfer petition, finding no reasonable grounds for apprehension of bias. The Court also expressed its displeasure over the conduct of certain judges and emphasized the importance of maintaining judicial propriety and restraint.