Case: Bhajan Lal Vs. Jindal Strips Ltd

The appellant is the Chief Minister of Haryana. The first respondent filed a writ petition CWP No. 1898 of 1992 challenging the assessment order passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxationauthority, Hissar, Haryana confirming a demand for sales tax of Rs 2,04,13,895. Similar writ petitions have been filed against separate assessment orders by the first respondent for a total amount of payment aggregating to a liability of Rs 20 crores. In these writ petitions allegations of personal mala fide have been levelled against the appellant. 2. The writ petition came up for preliminary hearing onbefore a Division Bench consisting of S.S. Sodhi and K.C. Garg, JJ. The writ petition was admitted and ex parte ad interim stay was granted. After notice, when the matter came up for hearing before a Bench consisting of S.S. Sodhi and R.S. Mongia, JJ., it was directed to be listed for final hearing onThe then Chief Justice Mr Rama Jois proceeded on leave onThereupon, S.S. Sodhi, J. became the Acting Chief Justice. 3. Onwhen the writ petition was listed before the Tax Bench comprising of A.P. Choudhary and N.K. Sodhi, JJ., S.S. Sodhi, J. directed the writ petition to be delisted from the Tax Bench before which it was listed and transferred the case presided over by S.S. Sodhi, J. himself. It appears this was the only case which was directed to be delisted from the Tax Bench and transferred to the Division Bench presided over by the then Acting Chief Justice. 4. OnChief Justice Mr Rama Jois returned from leave and resumed charge. Onthis Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7700 of 1992 arising out of a connected Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3864 of 1992 directed the case be remanded to the High Court ordering expeditious disposal along with CWP No. 1898 of 1992. OnChief Justice Rama Jois resigned. Thereupon, again, S.S. Sodhi, J. became Acting Chief Justice. He continued in that capacity tillWhen the writ petition was pending hearing, G.R. Majithia, J. sought an explanation from the Registrar (Judicial) as to why the case was transferred from the Tax Bench to the Bench presided over by the Acting Chief Justice. OnS.S. Sodhi, J. delisted the writ petition from his Bench andit to the Tax Bench comprising of A.L. Bahri and Ashok Bhan, JJ. The case did not reach for hearing before this Bench. OnG.R. Majithia, J. once again wrote to the Registrar (Judicial) seeking compliance with his earlier order datedThis letter was forwarded by the Registrar (Judicial) to the Acting Chief Justice soliciting orders in respect thereof. It was directed that the note be placed in the file. 5. OnJustice S.D. Agarwala was appointed as Chief Justice, As a result, S.S. Sodhi, J. became the senior most puisne Judge. 6. On the reopening of the High Court after summer vacation, the writ petition along with other connected petitions were placed for hearing before the Tax Bench comprising of S.S. Sodhi and Ashok Bhan, JJ. A request was made for an early hearing of the writ petition on behalf of the first respondent. Accordingly a direction was issued that the writ petitions be placed for final hearing onThe hearing went onA preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the State about the maintainability of the writ petition since the alternate statutory remedies available to the first respondent had not been exhausted. The Division Bench did not consider that objection but directed the arguments be addressed on merits. The petitions were adjourned for further orders to7. The records bear out. G.R. Majithia, J. addressed a letter to the learned Chief Justice onreferring to his earlier communication on the subject and requested to know the circumstances under which the writ petition had been transferred to a Division Bench presided over by S.S. Sodhi, J. Be that so. Onthe hearing recommenced on the writ petition. 8. The appellant on his return after long tour of Rajasthan and Delhi, oncame to know about these happenings. They were the cause of some consternation and apprehension in his mind since allegations of mala fides had been levelled against him by the first respondent who is said to be a political opponent. Therefore, onan application CM No. 9909 of 1993 was moved requesting the Division Bench to transfer the matter from their Bench. Notice was issued and the hearing was fixed on9. After hearing the arguments, the application for transfer was dismissed. However, time was granted tillto approach this Court and it was indicated that thereafter the matter would be taken up on day to day basis. 10. Appellant assails in this appeal the order refusing transfer. During this civil appeal, an additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the appellant giving details of the course which the writ petition took. He would have it, onwhen S.S. Sodhi, J. took over as Acting Chief Justice the writ petition was listed at Serial No. 342 before A.P Chaudhari and N.K. Sodhi, JJ. S.S. Sodhi, J. orally directed the Registrar (Judicial), Shri B.R. Gulati that the writ petition along with connected writ petitions be listed before a Bench presided over by the then Acting Chief Justice. The note in support of the same is produced as Annexure F. 11. The affidavit further proceeds to state that the deponent reliably learnt that the then Acting Chief Justice, in fact, went to the chambers of N.K. Sodhi, J. and told him that by mistake it had been listed before a Bench presided over by A.P. Chaudhari, J. N.K. Sodhi, J. was somewhat agitated and told the Acting Chief Justice that the transfer of the case from that Bench was not in accordance with the normal practice of the High Court. There was no reason why the matter was removed from the roaster. A.P. Chaudhari, J. also is said to have sent a formal note to the Registrar as to why this particular matter had been removed from their Bench and the note was apparently returned with an endorsement by the Registrar (Judicial) indicating that this was done on the oral directions of the Acting Chief Justice. The deponent believed that S.S. Sodhi, J. thereafter met N.K. Sodhi, J. to express his regret for what had happened. The list (constitution) of the Tax Bench comprising A.P Chaudhari and N.K. Sodhi, JJ. was circulated on the evening ofor on the morning of92 a request was made before S.S. Sodhi, J. that CWP No. 1898 of 1992, which he had while presiding over the Bench fixed formay not be taken up on that day. His further averment is as under : "It is further reliably learnt that Honble Chief Justice Rama Jois returned to Chandigarh in August 1992 and both Justice N.K. Sodhi and Justice A.P. Chaudhari met the Honble Chief Justice and it seems that the Honble Chief Justice conveyed to them that he had already told the Acting Chief Justice that this should not have been done and that the Acting Chief Justice should not hear the matter when it came up for hearing. Under these circumstances, it was felt that the Honble Judges from whose Bench it was delisted should not carry the matter any further. If these facts are correct, obviously Honble Justice S.S. Sodhi should not have heard this matter when it came up for hearing before him in October 1992. The deponent feels that it is imperative in matters of this nature that the Court believes that the executive does not file applications of this nature irresponsibly and with a motivation to have the matter heard by one Bench or another. The deponent has disclosed these facts as they have come to his knowledge, so that the Court may not have an impression that the application was motivationally filed and that by the filing of this application, the dignity of the Court is being compromised. The deponent herein respects the highest traditions and dignity of the Court, and would in no circumstances ever compromise it. The facts set out herein are stated instead to show that there was genuine apprehension in the mind of the deponent and that these facts were to the knowledge of the learned Judge in the matter. Since the petition involved allegations of personal mala fides against the deponent, and since the deponent was joined as athe circumstances as set out hereinabove warranted that the learned Judge need not have heard the matter himself, and that the Honble Chief Justice would have, in the circumstances, directed the matter to be listed before any appropriate Bench. It is not that the deponent was, and is wishing the matter to be heard by any particular Bench. It is with this view that the present affidavit is being filed." 12. Ahas been filed on behalf of the first respondent that the facts stated in the additional affidavit are not admitted by the first respondent since he has no means to verify the correctness of the same. Further, the appellant has not disclosed in his affidavit the source of his information. 13. Onserious arguments were addressed whether the affidavit must disclose the source of information. Therefore, the first respondent thought fit to file an affidavit that "his counsel Shri Shanti Bhushan contacted former Chief Justice Mr Rama Jois in the evening ofitself. He wrote about the contents of paragraph 8 and also informed him that the counsel for the appellant had stated before this Court that the information contained in that paragraph had been conveyed to the appellant by Chief Justice Mr Rama Jois. The counsel for the respondent asked Chief Justice Mr Rama Jois whether it was so to which the reply was that he considered it improper to talk about any conversation which might have taken place between the Chief Justice and other Judges of the High Court in the chambers. In view of this principle he could not give any such information to any person much less to a party or its counsel. Thus, it is clear that Chief Justice Mr Rama Jois could not have conveyed any such information to the appellant." 14. In response to this, the appellant stated that prior to the date of his filing the petition for transfer onhe contacted the then Chief Justice Mr Rama Jois on telephone and asked him why S.S. Sodhi, J. had taken up the matter. The appellant would state that he got the information that Chief Justice Mr Rama Jois had advised S.S. Sodhi, J. not to do so. This was confirmed by Chief Justice Mr Rama Jois. The appellant was also informed that Chief Justice Mr Rama Jois had informed S.S. Sodhi, J. that it was wrong on the part of S.S. Sodhi, J. to have transferred the matter in the first place. The appellant states that the retired Chief Justice Mr Rama Jois was asked whether his name could be mentioned in the application to be moved by him. The appellant was replied that this would embarrass him and his name should not be brought into the proceedings. Therefore, he did not mention the Judges name in the application and in the additional affidavit filed by him.

Court's reasoning:
19. The allegations relating to bias have paled into insignificance since the learned Judge (S.S. Sodhi, J.) against whom bias is alleged is no longer in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Normally, therefore, we would have rest content with the dismissal of this appeal as having become really infructuous. But certain unhappy events have taken place in this case which we view with concern. Therefore, we feel obliged to express our mind.The appellant is the Chief Minister of a State. Against him allegations of mala fides are made by the first respondent. He might have strongly resented such allegations quite understandably desired to defend himself. On that score, it cannot be said, a particular Bench cannot hear the case. Whatever might have been the reason for the transfer of the writ petition from one Bench to another to make that a ground for allegation of bias appears unjustified. May be, either because of a particular practice prevailing in a court that the Bench which directed the posting of a case should finally hear the matter or because of the change of roasters, the case would have come before a particular Bench. There is nothing to indicate that the then Acting Chief Justice S.S. Sodhi evinced an interest in hearing this matter or that, he was biased.Bias is the second limb of natural justice. Prima facie no one should be a judge in what is to be regarded as `sua causa, whether or not he is named as a party. Theshould have no interest by way of gain or detriment in the outcome of a proceeding. Interest may take many forms. It may be direct, it may be indirect, it may arise from a personal relationship or from a relationship with thefrom a close relationship or from a tenuous one.It is in the light of this, the matter will have to be examined. So done, we hardly find any ground to hold that there could be a reasonable suspicion of bias in this case. That is evident from the facts. The case was in the list of the Bench headed by S.S. Sodhi, J. from2. No objection was raised. Arguments were advanced for three days on the main writ petition. The application for transfer was taken out on the ground of alleged bias. By then the matter was coming to a close. It cannot be said that there could be any reasonable apprehension of bias which a reasonable person could entertain, as rightly urged by Mr Shanti Bhushan. It appears the attempt was to avoid the Bench headed by S.S. Sodhi, J.We are unhappy that the appellant should have felt compelled to seek information as to what transpired within "the judicial fortress" among the judicial brethren. Judges should not be dragged in and their names mentioned in such matters. Rightly the former Chief Justice Mr Rama Jois refused to allow his name to be quoted considering it improper to talk about any conversation which might have taken place between the Chief Justice and the other Judges of the High Court in their chambers.We have perused these letters. We are of the view that the learned Judge should not have sent these communications. This conduct might incur the criticism of transgressing the proprieties of the high office. We cannot but express our unhappiness about these letters; whatever might have been the compulsions that impelled the learned Judge to do so. We presume that the learned Judge did so on his own impression of the proprieties of procedure adopted by the Registry. But his enquiries and letters are not consistent with the restraint expected of the high office.