K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Art 226 (1) (b) and (c) of the ( onstitution, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the order dated 12-1-1978 passed by the Land Tribunal, bantwal, in case No. TNC 5271/74-75 rejecting the application of the first petitioner and granting occupancy right in favour of the 3rd respondent in respect of the lands bearing Sy. Nos. 136 A 134/3 134/1 and 134/7 of ldkidu village of Bantwal Taluk. ( 2 ) IN this case, it is not necessary to go into the several facts of the case, inasmuch as, in my view the order of the tribunal is vitiated because of the bias alleged against the 6th respondent Shivarama Shetty. The 2nd petitioner who is the husband of the 1st petitioner and who has subsequently become the owner of the lands in question by reason of the sale deed dated 31-10-1969 executed by the widow of subbaiah Alva, filed an application before the Tribunal on 9-1-1976. The allegations in the said application are very material and go to show that the 6th respondent was not only interested in the matter, but he has earlier tried to settle the matter between the parties and he is also related to the 3rd respondent. The relevant portion of the said application are as follows : thus, from the contents of the said application, it is clear that serious allegations were made against the 6th respondent who, in spite of this, continued to participate in the proceedings as a member of the Tribunal till the passing of the final order which is impugned in this writ petition. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT-6 has filed the statement of objections and in that statement of objections, there is no denial of the allegations contained in the application dated 9 1-1976. Not only this, the petitioners have also made subsequent applications attributing mala fides to the 6th respondent. Even on 12-1 1978 also, an application came to be made attributing the mala fides. As already pointed out, the 6th respondent has not denied in his statement of objections the allegations made in the applications referred to above filed before the Tribunal. ( 4 ) SRI S. Shankaranarayana the learned Counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 and also the First Addl. As already pointed out, the 6th respondent has not denied in his statement of objections the allegations made in the applications referred to above filed before the Tribunal. ( 4 ) SRI S. Shankaranarayana the learned Counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 and also the First Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2, submitted that after the filing of the application dated 9-1-1976, the petitioners have participated in the proceedings before the Tribunal and only because the decision of the Tribunal has gone against them, they have now come forward with this plea, therefore, they should not be permitted to raise this plea and no credence should be given to the allegations of mala fides made against the 6th respondent. It was also further urged that the petitioners were not prevented from approaching this Court for appropriate relief, immediately after the riling of the application dated 9-1-1976. ( 5 ) IT should be remembered that the authority exercising quasi-judicial power, empowered with the duty to decide the rights of the parties in the cause before it, should function in a fair and just manner and it should be above board. It is a cardinal principle of justice that justice not only be done but it should manifestly appear to have been done. Here is a case where serious allegations were made against the 6th respondent and in spite of the said allegations, he has continued to participate in the proceedings. The fact that the parties have participated in the proceedings will not in any way improve the position and it does not take away the sting of partiality attributed to the proceeding by reason of participation in the proceeding by the 6th respondent. What is important to be seen is the reasonable apprehension entertained by a party to the proceeding that he was not going to get justice at the hands of the Tribunal, of which the 6th respondent was one of the members. What is important to be seen is the reasonable apprehension entertained by a party to the proceeding that he was not going to get justice at the hands of the Tribunal, of which the 6th respondent was one of the members. When once there are allegations made against a particular member of the Tribunal or an authority, required to act judicially, by a party to the proceeding before it and those allegations remain unchallenged, the fact that the authority consisted of several members and the order passed by such an authority is a well considered order, will not in any way improve the position and will not save the proceeding and the order passed thereon from the resultant effect of mala fides. That being so, in the absence of any proof that the allegations made were given up or proved to be baseless, the participation of such a person as a member of the Tribunal or the authority vitiates the entire proceedings, even though the persons who 'have made the allegations might have participated in the proceedings. In this case, the records of the Tribunal have been received and nothing is found either in the records or in the order of the tribunal refuting the allegations made in the application dated 9-1-1976. Nor is there anything to show that those allegations were given up. In the statement of objections filed in the form of an affidavit by the 6th respondent, there is no denial of the allegations made in the application dated 9-1-1976. Therefore, without going into the merits of the matter, I hold that the impugned order of the Tribunal is vitiated because of the allegations of bias made against respondent-6, which have not been denied. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this writ petition is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Tribunal is hereby quashed. The matter now stands remitted to the Tribunal with a direction to decide the case afresh in accordance with Jaw after affording an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and after hearing them. ( 7 ) IT was further submitted at the Bar that there is an additional Tribunal constituted during the pendency of this writ petition. If that be so it is open for the parties to apply to the concerned authority for transferring this case to the additional tribunal. ( 7 ) IT was further submitted at the Bar that there is an additional Tribunal constituted during the pendency of this writ petition. If that be so it is open for the parties to apply to the concerned authority for transferring this case to the additional tribunal. By the order dated 19-4-1978, the receiver appointed by the Tribunal was continued by this Court until further orders. Accordingly, the receiver is continued even to this day. In view of the disposal of this writ petition, it is now open for the parties to make an application before the tribunal for continuation of the receiver till the disposal of the application, by the tribunal. --- *** --- .