rt allowed the reauction to be held on 19th April 1984
Since the highest bidder in the reauction did not deposit the necessary amount in time as required under the Rules the Court set aside the reauction
As the appellant offered to take the shop on lease for a sum of Rs 30 lacs and the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the administration of Andaman and Nicobar Islands accepted the offer
The Court sanctioned the lease in favour of the appellant on the condition of making the necessary deposit within 10 days from that day
36B F G  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No 4416 of 1984 Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated 4th April 1984 of the Calcutta High Court in F M A T No 992 of 1983 26 Vasanta Pai Ms section Vaidalingam and P J George for the Appellant
Bina Gupta for the respondent
K G Bhagat  Addl Sol
General
R N Poddar and M N Krishnumani for the Respondent
R Karanjawala and Miss M Karanjawala for the applicant in Intervention appln
K Parasaran Atty
General and D N Sinha at request of Court
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY J
Curiouser and curiouser Alice would have certainly exclaimed with us had the mischievous state of affairs of the present case come to her notice
We confess that the state of affair is but the inevitable consequence of a most curious procedure said to be followed over the years by the Calcutta High Court a practice which we are happy to say no other High Court in the country follows a practice which do put in the mildest terms is unhealthy and likely to lead to harm and abuse and a practice which we now propose to forbid in the exercise of our powers under article 141 of the Constitution
The practice the consequences and our precept will reveal themselves as we proceed to state the facts
We may mention at the Cutset Act in response to our invitation the learned Attorney General very graciously addressed us and indeed made forceful submissions
We are grateful to him to his valuable assistance
An auction of the right to sell liquor at Rangat Andaman Islands was held on 15
2 84 by the Deputy Commissioner Port Blair
One B K Hariwat was the highest bidder
Ms Samarais Trading Co Pvt Ltd having an office at Port Blair the petitioner before us in the Special Leave Petition was one of the participants in the auction but not section Samual So Swami Das Pillai 12 Cathral Road Madras who figures before us as the first respondent
As B K Hariwat did not deposit fifty per cent of the license fee as clause 14 of the terms and conditions of the auction the sale was not confirmed and the shop had to be auctioned again
The second auction was held on 28
3 1984
At this auction Ms Samarias Trading Co Pvt Ltd was the highest bidder
The bid was for a 27 sum of Rupees 25 lakhs
section Samuel also participated in the auction A but his bid was just over Rupees 17 Lakhs only
The highest bidder Ms Samarias Trading Co Pvt Ltd deposited sum of Rs 10000 250000 and 990000 on 29
3 1984
3 1984 and 29 3
1984 respectively
The sale was confirmed and shop was awarded to Ms Samarias Trading Co Pvt Ltd The license was to enure for the period 1 4
1984 to 31
3 1985
In the meanwhile things moved at Calcutta on 30
3 1984
When the Court was about to rise for the day Shri Shankardas Banerjee Senior Advocate mentioned to a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court Shri Justice Pyne that he desired to move an application before the judge in his chambers after the court rose
The learned judge granted leave and accordingly Sarvashari section D Banerjee Ashoke Kumar Ganguly and K K Bandopadhyay learned Advocate purporting to appear on behalf of a person professing to be section Samuel moved the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in his chambers under article 226 of the Constitution and obtained an ex parte order in the following terms On the oral application of Mr section D Banerjee and upon his undertaking to move application by Tuesday next there will be an order as follows
The respondents are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the liquor shop at Rangat in Middle Andaman and not to proceed on the basis of the alleged liquor auction held on 28
3 1984
The order will remain in force till Tuesday next
Let a plain copy countersigned by Asstt
Registrar Court be given to the learned Advocate to the petitioner
SdR N Pyne
 The remarkable fact worthy of immediate attention is that there was no written application before the learned Judge
The order of the learned Judge was made on an oral application and makes not the slightest attempt to indicate even briefly the facts told him the question of law if any raised before him and the reasons which prompted him to make the interim order that he did
All that we can gather from the proceedings and the record of the court is that some oral application was made an oral undertaking was given to make a written application within four days and an interim order was issued by the court directing the maintenance of status quo in regard to an
auction of liquor shops already held
28 The order does not disclose that the learned Single Judge was aware that the bid was for such a large amount as Rs 25 lakhs that at least Rupees Twelve and half lakhs would have been deposited by the time the order was made and that the license itself was to take effect from 1 4 1984
What was to happen to the amount already deposited  Who was to run the liquor shop from 1 4 1994  What security had been taken from the petitioner to protect the revenue and the other respondents  We get no indication from the order
In fact the order made no provision to protect any one from any resulting mischief
And all this on an oral undertaking given by an advocate that a petition would be filed on behalf of a party whose very existence we now find is doubtful as we shall have occasion to point out hereafter
No record not a scrap of paper was filed into court at that stage and no contemporaneous record was prepared by anyone containing the barest allegations constituting the foundation of the oral application that was actually made the written application that was proposed to be filed and the interim order issued
A most curious procedure indeed for a court of record to follow  And a situation where a judge would have to turn witness if any dispute arose subsequently as to what the allegations were and shy the judge made the order  Shri section section Ray who appeared before us at some stages of the case informed us that a practice of this nature of obtaining interim orders on oral applications subject to undertaking being given proposing to file written applications later had always been in vogue in the Calcutta High Court
It was a matter of great surprise to us that a court of justice and at that a court of record should have been following such a practice The learned Attorney General informed us that such a practice was not followed in any other High Court and he placed before us substantial and compelling reasons vigorously deprecating such a practice reasons which have found favour with us
Shri Lal Narain Sinha former Attorney General who practiced for a considerable length of time in the Patna High Court which generally inherited if we may use such an expression the practice and procedure of the Calcutta High Court and who happened to be present before us at another stage of the hearing of the cases and whose assistance we sought and for which we are grateful to him told us that in his long experience he was not aware of any such practice and that such a practice was never followed in the Patna High Court      
We our selves are personally familiar with the practice followed in the Madras Karnataka Andhra Pradesh Madhya Pradesh and 29 Rajasthan High Courts and we can assert that such a practice is not heard of in these courts
Some counsel from Bombay who  were present before us also told us that no such practice is followed in their High Court
We do not have the slightest doubt that if the practice exists any where it is a most unwholesome practice likely to lead to vicious and pernicious results
It is a practice to be strongly deprecated a practice reminiscent of the feudal days when the French nobility could procurea lettre de cachet under the Sovereign s seal authorising a subject s imprisonment with out trial and without mention of any reason
It is a practice which strikes at the very root of the system of open and even handed justice as we know it and the sooner it is abandoned the better for the administration of justice
We express our disapprobation and forbid the practice of entertaining oral applications by any court in matters of consequence without any record before it
We do not mean to suggest that oral application may never be made or entertained by a Court
Far from the contrary
For example all applications for adjournment are generally made orally
Often during the course of the hearing of a case it becomes necessary to n make applications of a formal nature and such applications are permitted by the Presiding judge
But in all such cases the court is already seized of the principal matter or dispute and there is a record pertaining to it before the court
But we hardly see any justification for the entertainment of an oral application and the issuance of an interim order with no record whatever of what was submitted to the court or the reasons for the order made by the court
To permit a procedure by which oral applications may be made and interim orders obtained without any petition in writing without any affidavit having been sworn to as prima facie proof of allegations and without any record being kept before the court may lead to very serious abuse of the process of the court
In fact we have come across instances in the past where the Calcutta High Court had exercised jurisdiction in matters in which no part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction a situation which would surely not have arisen if a written and not an oral application had been made
Again we do not mean to suggest that other urgent oral applications may never be made
If someone is going to be deported in a few minutes or if some grossly inenquitous act is about to be perpetrated and any delay would result in the fait accompli of a monstrosity urgent oral applications may be moved and urgent interim order issued
If urgent interim orders are imperative at least skeletal applications setting out the bare facts 30 and the questions involve1 should be insisted upon
A detailed application could be permitted to be filed later
Surely a Court would be in a more advantageous position with something in writing from a party who can take responsibility for the statements made than an oral submission based on oral instructions from God knows who
If the matter is so urgent as not even to brook any insistence upon a written application the judge should at least take the trouble and the care to record in his order the facts mentioned to him and the submissions made to him
It is essential that there be a contemporaneous record
Otherwise the Court ceases to be a court of record
After all there are always two sides to a picture
In the absence of a petition in writing in the absence of an order containing a narration of the facts and the reasons for the orders what is an affected person to do  What allegation is he supposed to meet  How is he to avert the mischief and damage which may result from the order  Is he to await the pleasure of the petitioner who having obtained an interim order is naturally interested in not filing his written petition till the very last minute so as to prolong the life of the interim order and the mischief
One may very well imagine a case where a party instructs an Advocate to move an oral application before a Judge obtains an interim order and disappear from the scene without filing any regular petition
What is the under taking worth in such an event  The facts of this very case we shall presently point out have led to such an abuse
To resume the Stranger than fiction story on 30th March 1984 itself Shri KK Bandhopadhyay Advocate Calcutta sent a telegram to the Deputy Commissioner District Andaman Port Blair
informing him about the order of stay granted by the Calcutta High Court
The Deputy Commissioner duly informed Ms Samerias Trading Co Pvt Ltd about the stay granted by the Calcutta High Court
immediately on receipt of the information the representative of Ms Samarias Trading Co Pvt Ltd and their Advocate went to Calcutta on 24
1984 where they obtained confirmation that a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court had made an order such as claimed by Shri KK Bandhopadhyay in his telegram
Ms Samarias Trading Co Pvt briefed a senior Advocate Shri Saktinath Mukherjee to appear before Shri Justice Pyne on 341984
The information was that the writ petition would be taken up for orders at 230 PM
On 341984
While the representative of Ms Samarias Trading Co Pvt Ltd and their advocate 31 were waiting in the court they came to learn that the matter A had been mentioned to Shri Justice Pyne in his chamber by Shri Bhola Nath Sen the Senior Advocate representing Mr section Samuel and that the order of status quo had been extended until further orders
The representative of Ms Samarias Trading Co Pvt Ltd and their advocate and the Deputy Commissioner of Andamans all of whom were waiting in the Court were not told that the matter was going to be mentioned in the learned Judge s chamber
As soon as they came to know about the continuance of the order of status quo they requested Mr Justice Pyne to re consider the order but the learned judge declined to do so
Interrupting our narrative here for a momemt we are once again constrained to comment on the peculiar procedure that was adopted in the case
The reason we are told for moving the application in the chamber of the learned judge instead of in open Court was that Mr Justice Pyne was sitting on the original Side in Court and so the application which had to made on the Appellate Side had to be moved in his Chamber
We are unable to understand why it should be so and why the application could not be moved in open court
A sitting in chambers could be held when both sides are represented and the sittings are held openly so that members of the public if they desire to attend may have access even in the chamber
To grant interim orders on oral application in chambers when the judge is otherwise sitting in open court for other matters would seriously reflect on the fairness of the procedure adopted by the courts and may have the unpleasant effect of undermining public confidence in courts
Sometimes when a learned judge is sitting in a Division Bench or a Full Bench some application may have to be made to him individually in which case permission is always sought in open Court to move the application in the chamber
The Registry then prepares a special list puts it up on the notice board and before and before the Judge s chamber and also circulates a copy to the Bar Association
This procedure is followed in some High Courts and if such a procedure is followed then alone can we keep up the high tradition of open justice
A public hearing is one of the great attributes of a court and courts of this country are therefore require to administer justice in public
Otherwise there is a risk that justice may even be undone
As most admirably expressed by Fletcher Moulton LJ in Scott vs Scott Courts of Justice who are the guardians of civil liberties ought 32 to be doubly vigilant against encroachment by themselves
It is not as a matter of policy but as a matter of law  that the hearing of a cause he public except in the limited class of cases with which we are not now concerned
Th It rule was violated by the learned Single Judge in this case
After all the administration of justice is a vital concern first of public more than any private party the public has a right to present in court and watch the proceeding and its conduct except in the very rare cases where the very cause of advancement of justice requires that proceeding be held in camera
In Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar  ors
vs State of Maharashtra  Anr1 it was observed by this Court as follows It is well settled that in general all cases brought before the Courts whether civil criminal or others must be heard in open Court
Public trail in open court is undoubtedly essential for the healthy objective and fair administration of justice
Trial held subject to the public scrutiny and gaze naturally acts as a check against judicial caprice or vagaries and serves as a powerful instrument for creating confidence of the public in the fairness objectivity and impartiality of the administration of justice
Public confidence in the administration of justice is of such great significance that there can be no two opinions on the broad proposition that in discharging their functions as judicial Tribunals courts must generally hear causes in open and must permit the public admission to the court room
As Bentham has observed In the darkness of secrecy sinister interest and evil in every shape have full swing
Only in proportion as publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate
Where there is no publicity there is no justice
Publicity is the very soul of justice
It is the keenest spur to exertion and surest of all guards against improbity
It keeps the Judge himself while trying under trial in the sense that the security of securities is publicity
Scott vs Scott In Mc pherson vs Mc pherson 2 the Judicial Committee observed 1 1966l 3 section
CR 744
2 AIR 1936 PC 246
33 Moreover the potential presence of the public almost necessarily invests the proceedings with some degree of formality
And formality is perhaps the only available substitute for the solemnity by which ideally at all events such proceedings should be characterised
That potential presence is at least some guarantee that there shall be ascertain decorum of procedure These are some of the considerations which have led their Lordships to take a more serious view the absence of the public from the trial of this divorce action that has obtained in the Courts below
influenced by them their Lordships have felt impelled to regard the inroad upon the rule of publicity made in this instance unconscious thought it was as one not to b justified and now that it has been disclosed as one that must be condemned so that it shall not again be permitted
 To resume the narrative Ms Samarias Trading Co Pvt Ltd immediately filed a Writ Appeal under the Letters Patent before the Division Bench consisting of Mr Justice M M Dutt r and Mr Justice Ajit Kumar Sen Gupta
The matter was mentioned before the Division Bench at 3 4S l M
By consent of parties the Writ Appeal filed by Ms Samaries Trading Co Pvt Ltd and the Writ Petition filed by Samuel were both directed to be listed for hearing bfore them on 4 4 1984
With great difficulty Ms Samarias Trading Co Pvt Ltd were able to get a copy of the writ petition at that stage
The Division bench disposed of both the writ petition and writ appeal finally on 4 4
1984 itself
The order of Division Bench was in the following terms By consent of parties we treat the appeal as on day s list
As prayed for by the learned Advocates for the parties we also treat the Writ Petition as on day s list
After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the auction for vending of liquor that has been held should be set aside
Accordingly we set aside the auction and direct the Deputy Commis 34 sioner of Andaman and Nicobar Islands to hold a fresh auction on the basis of the new terms and conditions that have already been circulated being annexure to the Writ Petition
The auction will be held on the 19th April 1984 at 11 A M at the Conference Hall Deputy Commissioner s office at Port Blair
The reserved price for the auction of the liquor shop is fixed at Rs 3000000 thirty lacs
It must he made clear that the period for which the auction of the liquor shop will be held will be from 22nd April1984 till 31st of March 1985
The auction will be advertised once in the Statesman in Calcutta and once in the Indian Express in Madras at least five days before the auction
In the event the reserved price of rupees thirty lacs is not bid in that case the writ petitioner undertakes to this Court that he will take the license at the reserved price of rupees thirty lacs and in that event the appellant under takes to this Court not to carry on the business of liquor after the 21st of April 1984
The participants in the bid will be at liberty to take with them their respective Advocates The appellant shall be liable to pay to the Administra tion the proportionate license fee for the days in the month of April upto 21st of April 1984 during which he will carry on the business of liquor on the basis of his offer already made that is Rs 2500000 Twenty five lacs for one year
The Deputy Commissioner is directed to refund to the appellant the amount of the deposit which he has made in respect of the disputed auction loss the proportionate license fee for the days for which he will carry on business in the month of April upto 21st April 1984 immediately the day on which the appellant starts vending liquor
Further the Deputy Commissioner shall issue necessary orders enabling the appellant to carry on the liquor business till 21st April 1994
35 The appeal and the writ appeal are disposed of as above
There will be no order for costs
The appellant does not admit the allegations made in the writ petition
Let plain copies of this order countersigned by the Assistant Registrar Court he given to the learned Advocates for the parties
On the next day the order was modified as follows This matter has been mentioned by both the parties for the purpose of rectifying one clerical mistake
It is directed in modification of our order dated April 4 1984 that in the event the reserve price of Rs 3000000 thirty lacs is not bid in that case the writ petitioner undertakes to this Court that he will take the license at the reserved price of 30 00000 and in that case the appellant undertakes to this Court not to carry on the business of liquor at Rangat Middle Andmans pursuant to the existing license after the 21st April 1984
If however any new license is granted to the appellant pursuant to the auction that will be held on the 19th April 1984 the appellant will of course be able to carry on the business of liquor at that place upto 31st March 1985
Our order dated 4th April 1984 is modified to the above extent and the rest of the said order will stand
Aggrieved by the order of the Calcutta High Court Ms Samarias Trading Co Pvt Ltd filed the special leave petition out of which the present appeal arises on 11
4 1984
One George Joseph claiming to be working for gain with Respondent No 1 Shri Samuel filed a counter affidavit purporting to be on behalf of Respondent No 1
At the first hearing of the special leave petition on 174
1984 Shri section section Ray Senior Advocate appeared for the respondent No 1
On that day the learned counsel appearing for the Ms Samarias Trading Co Pvt
Ltd produced before us an affidavit dated 16
4 1984 purporting to be that of section Samuel in which he disclaimed that he ever instructed any one to file any writ peti 36 tion in the Calcutta High Court on his behalf
This affidavit appeared to destroy the very foundation of the order of the Calcutta High Court
The genuineness of the affidavit was however disputed by Shri George Joseph who Was present in court and section section Ray senior advocate appearing on behalf of section Samuel
In that situation we directed the issue of notice to all parties and bound over George Joseph to appear before us at the next hearing
We directed that section Samuel should be present before us at the next hearing
We also directed that the re auction as ordered by the Calcutta High Court should be held on April 19 1984 but that the sale should not be confirmed
The matter came before us again on April 26 1984
We were told that the re auction had fetched a bid of Rs 36 lakhs and 80 thousand 
We were also told that because of our direction that the sale should not be confirmed the amount required to be deposited within 48 hours could not be deposited
We therefore directed the highest bidder to deposit the amount required to be deposited under the rules on or before April 301984
Fresh notices were issued to section Samuel and we instructed the Registry to mention in the notice that if Samuel failed to appear at the next hearing a non bailable warrant would be issued for his arrest
We also issued a notice to Dr D K Banerjee Advocate who prepared the affidavit filed by Mr section Samuel in the Calcutta High Court to appear before us on may 3 1984
George Joseph was bound over to appear before us
He was also directed to file an affidavit setting out the full facts of the case which were within his knowledge
At the next hearing on May 3 19 4 we were informed that Subramaniam had breached the undertaking given to us on April 26 1984 that he would deposit the amount required to be deposited by the rules before April 30 1984
We therefore had no option but to set aside the auction
Fortunately the petitioner Ms Samarias Trading Co Pvt Ltd offered to take the shop on lease for a shop of Rs 30 lakhs and the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the administration of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands accepted the offer
The lease was sanctioned by us subject to the petitioner making the necessary deposit within 10 days from that day
On August 7 1984 George Joseph failed to appear before us notwithstanding that he had executed a bond undertaking to be present before us
We therefore directed the issue of a non bailable warrant against him for his production before us on August 23 1984 Mr Samuel was also bound over to appear before us on August 37 23 1984
On that day Shri KK Bandopadhyay filed a statement before us seeking to explain the circumstances under which he appeared before MrJustice Pyne to assist Shri Ashok Kumar Ganguly
He is a junior advocate working in the chambers of Shri Mahitosh Majumdar at whose instance it was that he was asked to assist Shri AK Ganguly
He was told that Shri SD Benerjee senior advocate would make an oral application
He met a group of people one of whom claimed to be section Samuel
A consultation was held by Shri AK Ganguly and the gentleman holding himself out as Samuel with Shri SD Banerjee in his presence in the court premises at about 315 pm
On the same day
Thereafter Shri SD Banerjee entered the court room of Mr Justice Pyne and moved an unlisted motion before the hon ble judge at 400 pm when the court was about to rise
Shri SD Banerjee sought the permission of the hon ble judge to move the matter in the chamber of the hon ble judge by way of an oral application
Leave was granted and the application was moved before the learned judge in his chamber at 410 pm
Shri AK Ganguly and Shri KK Bandyopadhyay appeared along with Shri S D Banerjee
That evening the gentleman who held himself out as section Samuel and two or three others met Shri KK Bandyopadhyay and the latter requested Shri M Lahiri advocate to draft a writ petition
The two of them prepared the writ petition and got it ready for filing on April 31984
section Samuel also handed over a Vakalatnama to him
On 3rd the said gentleman appeared before the oath Commissioner and the papers were duly lodged as Mr Justice Pyne was sitting on the original side on April 31984 according to Shri Bandyopadhyay
The oral application had to be moved in the chamber of the learned judge
Accordingly Shri BNSen senior counsel moved the application assisted by Shri Lahiri and Shri Bandyopadhyay
Later the matter was mentioned in court on behalf of Ms Samarias Trading Co Pvt Ltd before the Division Bench and an oral prayer was made for suspending the order of Mr Justice Pyne
Both the writ petition and the appeal were directed to be listed on the next day
As we thought it imperative that George Joseph should be present before us we adjourned the matter to August 231984 for his production
On August 231984 when the matter was next taken up George Joseph continued to be absent and a non bailable warrant was issued for his arrest and production on September 11 984
Mr Samuel was also bound over to be present in the court 38 on September 11 1984
We also now have before us the affidavi ts of SShri section D Banerjee B N Sen M Mazumdar and A K Ganguly of the Calcutta Bar explaining the facts and circumstances pertaining to the proceedings that took place in the Calcutta High Court
Their affidavits which confirming the facts already narrated by us disclose that none of them personally knew Samuel as indeed one may not expect an advocate to know every client of his personally
They were like others taken for a ride if one may be permitted to use so common an expression
Their affidavits only emphasise what we have already said about the undesirability of making oral applications of consequence before courts with nothing placed in the court s record to vouch for the authenticity of the facts forming the basis of the representations made to the court etc
So far as this appeal is concerned there is nothing further to be done by us we have now sanctioned the lease of the liquor shop in favour of the appellants for the year April 1 1984 to March 31 1985
We are however informed by the petitioner that though the lease has been confirmed in their favour from April l 1984 to March 31 1985 for a sum of Rs 30 lakhs the administration of the Andaman Nicobar Islands is demanding from them a sum of Rs One lakh and odd towards the lease for the few days that they ran the liquor shop after April 1 1984 under the orders of Calcutta High Court calculated at the rate of Rs 25 lakhs per year
We are unable to see any justification for the demand since the lease as sanctioned and as confirmed is admittedly for the entire period April 1 1984 to March 31 1985 for Rs 30 lakhs
The demand is directed to be withdrawn
The appeal is allowed in the terms indicated
A notice will however issue to George Joseph to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of court for breaching the undertaking given by him
A nonbailable warrant will also issue for his production before us
Since the real Samuel has disclaimed all responsibility in the matter and since we do not know who was the person who represented himself as Samuel before the Calcutta High Court we are unable to award costs against anyone


Summary:
A single Judge of the Calcutta High Court on an oral application made in his chamber on behalf of a person professing to be respondent No 1 and on giving an oral undertaking to make a written application within 4 days issued an interim order directing maintenance of status quo in regard to an auction of a liquor shop held in favour of the appellant
The said order did not make any attempt to indicate even briefly the facts the question of law if any raised before the Judge and the reasons which prompted him to make such an interim order
On receiving the information about the said order the appellant contacted the High Court and got the information that the subsequent writ petition filed by respondent No I under Article 226 would be taken up for orders at 2
30 pm
On 3 4 1984
While the representatives of the appellant and their advocate were wailing in the court they came to know that the matter had been mentioned in the chamber of the learned Judge who had earlier granted stay and that the order of statues quo had been extended until further orders
The appellant told the learned Single Judge that they were waiting in the Court and 
were not informed that the matter was going to be mentioned in his chamber and in view of this they requested the learned Judge to reconsider his order
But the Judge declined to do so
There upon the appellant filed a Writ Appeal
The Writ Petition filed by respondent No I along with the Writ Appeal of the appellant were heard together by a Division Bench which set aside the auction and directed that a fresh auction be held on 19th April 1984
Aggrieved by the said order the appellant has filed the present appeal
Disposing of the appeal  HELD There is hardly any justification for the entertainment of an oral application and the issuance of an interim order with no record whatever of what was submitted to the court of the reasons for the order made by the court
To permit a procedure by which oral applications may be made and internal orders obtained without any petition in writing without any affidavit having been sworn to as prima facie proof of allegations and without any record before kept before the court may lead to very serious abuse of the process of the court
Therefore this Court expresses its disapprobation and forbids the 25 practice of entertaining oral applications by any court in matters of consequence A without any record before it
29E G 2 This Court does not mean to suggest that oral application may never be made
Often during the course of the hearing of a case it becomes necessary to make applications of a formal nature and such application are permitted by the Presiding Judge
But in all such cases the court is already seized of the principal matter or dispute and there is a record pertaining to it before the 13 court
Again this Court does not mean to suggest that other urgent oral applications may never be made
If urgent interim orders are imperative at least skeletal applications setting out the bare facts and the questions invoked should be insisted upon
A detailed application could be permitted to be filed later
If the matter is so urgent as not even to brook any insistence upon a written application the judge should at least take The trouble and the care to record in his order the facts mentioned to him and the submissions made to him
It is essential that there be a contemporaneous record
Otherwise the court ceases to be a court of record
29G H 30A B 3 A sitting in chambers could be held when both sides are represented and the sittings are held openly so that members of the public if they desire to attend may have access even in the chamber
To grant interim orders on oral applications in chambers when the judge is otherwise sitting in open court for other matters would seriously reflect on the fairness of the procedure adopted by the courts and may have the unpleasant effect of undermining public confidence in courts
A public hearing is one of the great attributes of a court and courts of this country are therefore required to administer justice in public
Otherwise there is a risk that justice may even be undone
It is not as a matter of policy but as a matter of law  that The hearing of a cause be public except in the limited class of cases
That rule was violated by the learned Single Judge in this case
3lEH 32AB Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar  ors
vs State of Maharashtra PC 246 referred to