IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8555 of 2009 Date of decision: May 29, 2009. Sham Sunder ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri S.C. Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): Notice of motion. Shri Palvinder Singh, learned Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter affidavit from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner asserts himself to be a tenant in the disputed shop located on Kurali road in Ropar and owned by the Panchayat Samiti – respondent No.2. Eviction proceedings under the Punjab Public Premises & Land (Eviction and recovery) Act, 1973 were initiated against the petitioner. Smt. Kavita Singh, IAS, the then Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ropar, exercising the powers of Collector, Ropar, decided those eviction proceedings against the petitioner vide an order dated 20.8.2007. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Ropar who had been delegated the powers of the Commissioner under the Act. It is the petitioner's case that despite a specific objection taken in writing, Shri B. Purusartha, IAS, the then Deputy Commissioner, Ropar, who happened to be the husband of Smt. Kavita Singh, heard and dismissed the appeal vide the impugned order dated 13.1.2009 (Annexure P-1). Besides this, the petitioner had raised contentions on merits also. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that unless there were exceptional circumstances, attracting the doctrine of necessity, it would have been appropriate for the learned appellate authority to transfer the case to some other officer having jurisdiction to decide the appeals. It is one of the cardinal principle of natural justice and fair play that justice should not only be done but it should also appear to have been done. Notwithstanding the uprightness, impartiality, fairness and dispassionate approach of the Appellate Forum, there was likelihood of a lurking suspicion in the mind of the justice seeker as if the learned Presiding Officer was greatly influenced by the fact that the order under appeal was passed by his own wife. Incidentally, the circumstances have now changed, inasmuch, as Mr. B. Purusartha, IAS has since been transferred and Mr. Priyank Bharti, IAS has taken over as the Deputy Commissioner, Ropar. Consequently, the impugned appellate order dated 13.1.2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Ropar to decide the same afresh in accordance with law, and uninfluenced of the observations/ findings recorded in the impugned order dated 13.1.2009. The appellate authority shall endeavour to decide the matter as early as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. This order, however, shall not be taken as an aspersion or adverse comments on the work or conduct of Mr. B. Purusartha who had earlier decided the appeals. Disposed of. Dasti. May 29, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge