WP(C) 3432/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA . Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the materials on record including the time-to-time orders passed by the Assam Board of Revenue. The appeal was admitted keeping open the limitation poin t. The order to that effect was passed on 4.12.2003. It is the contention of the petitioner that the appeal could not have been admitted without first condoning the delay, which is about 11 years. Further contention raised by the petitioner is that the appeal having not been filed in conformity with the provisions of t he Assam Land & Revenue Regulations and the Assam Board of Revenue Regulations, the appeal ought not to have been entertained. The last but not the least allega tion of the petitioner is that the particular Member of the Assam Board of Reven ue, before whom the appeal is pending, should not hear the appeal, as according to the petitioner, in the given facts and circumstances, the said Member may not be free from bias in deciding the appeal. I have gone through the application seeking transfer of the appeal being Case No .155 RA (K)/2003 from the Court of the said Member. Although various grounds had been urged in the application, but the learned Chairman of the Board by his ord er dated 3.6.2010 rejected the prayer, without dealing with the said grounds. Th e grounds assigned in the order dated 3.6.2010 are foreign to the grounds urged in the application. Although the allegation made against the particular Member by the petitioner, ma y not be correct, but in all fairness and having regard to the grounds urged in the transfer application, I am of the considered opinion that the said Member should refrain himself from hearing the appeal in question. If not f or any other reason, such course of action should be adopted for ends of justice and to show that the justice has been done. I hasten to add that no opinion has been expressed regarding the merit and/or the contentions raised in the applica tion seeking transfer. What has been emphasized is that in view of the allegatio n made, the said Member should refrain himself from hearing the appeal. Another allegation made is that although an application was filed by one Smti. A njali Mazumdar seeking her impleadment in the appeal and the same was allowed, b ut without affording her any opportunity to file objection, the matter has been fixed for hearing on 24.06.2010. Further allegation made is that the appeal ca nnot be heard on merit without first condoning the significant delay in filing t he appeal. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that for ends of j ustice, the appeal should be heard by another Member, other than the one, who ha s passed the order dated 17.6.2010. The said Member shall proceed in the mater i n accordance with law. While hearing the appeal, he will necessarily decide the delay condonation petition taking into account the objection, which may be file d by the parties. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. It is hereby pro vided that the learned Member shall expedite the hearing of the appeal along wit h the delay condonation petition and if possible, shall decide the same on or be fore 31st August 2010. Writ petition is disposed of.