JUDGMENT : R.K. Patra, J. - Basing on the maxim "Nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa" (no man can be a judge in his own cause), the petitioner in this application Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the validity of the order made by the Accounts Member, Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack at annexure 2. 2. The relevant facts leading to filing of this application may be briefly indicated : The petitioner was originally assessed u/s 12(4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") for the year 1982-83. Later, basing on a fraud report submitted by the Inspector of Sales Tax, the Sales Tax Officer started proceeding u/s 12(8) of the Act and by order dated December 9, 1983, enhanced the returned turnover by ten per cent which resulted in extra tax demand and imposition of penalty and extra tax demand under the Orissa Additional Sales Tax Act, 1975. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed first appeals Nos. AA230 to 23(SAI) of 1983-84 before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Sambalpur Range, Sambalpur, which were disposed of by Shri B.D. Patta-naik. By order dated May 14, 1984 he set aside the assessment and remanded the matter to the Sales Tax Officer for completion of fresh assessment. The Sales Tax Officer after remand, considered the materials available on record and passed orders on February 4, 1985 reiterating his previous order. Against this order dated February 4, 1985, the petitioner filed the first appeal bearing Nos. AA 26 and 27 (SAD of 1985-86 before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Sambalpur Range, Sambalpur. Both the appeals again Came up for hearing before the aforesaid Shri B.D. Pattanaik who by order dated December 8, 1987 set aside the order of the Sales Tax Officer. The Revenue being felt aggrieved by the aforesaid appellate orders, filed second appeal Nos. 1215 and 1216 of 1988-89 before the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal, Cuttack (in brief "the Tribunal"). The Tribunal's Accounts Member by order dated November 27, 1995 vacated the order of the Assistant Commissioner and restored the order of the Sales Tax Officer. The Accounts Member of the Tribunal who disposed of the second appeals was none other than Shri B.D. Pattanaik who had earlier disposed of the first appeals in the capacity of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. The Accounts Member of the Tribunal who disposed of the second appeals was none other than Shri B.D. Pattanaik who had earlier disposed of the first appeals in the capacity of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. 3. The rule of natural justice basically and essentially constitutes two elements, namely, (i) no one shall be condemned unheard (audi alteram partem) and, (ii) no one shall be a judge in his own cause (nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa). Since in the present case we are concerned with the second element, it may be stated that the requirement of "fair play in action" or "fair hearing" not only applies to judicial proceedings, but also to quasi judicial and administrative proceedings. "Nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa", i.e., no one shall be a judge in his own cause is a principle now firmly established in law. Justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done. Justice can never be seen to be done if a man acts as a judge in his own cause or where he himself sits as an appellate authority to hear an appeal against his own order. The principle underlying this rule is that the hearing should be done by the concerned authority with an unbiased mind. The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Shivananda Pathak and Others, observed as follows : "Bias has many forms. It may be pecuniary bias, personal bias, bias as to subject-matter in dispute, or policy bias, etc. In the instant case, we are not concerned with any of these forms of bias. We have to deal, as we shall presently see, a new form of bias, namely, bias on account of judicial obstinacy" (emphasis* supplied) In this connection, it is profitable to refer to another decision of the Supreme Court in Baidyanath Mahapatra Vs. State of Orissa and Another, wherein it has been observed as follows : "There is a disturbing feature of this case which vitiates Tribunal's order. Shri Gian Chand, Chairman of the Tribunal, ex-Chief Secretary of the State of Orissa, was member of the Review Committee which made recommendation against the appellant for his premature retirement and in pursuance thereof the State Government had issued the impugned order. It appears that Shri Gian Chand had later been appointed as Chairman of the Administrative Tribunal. Shri Gian Chand, Chairman of the Tribunal, ex-Chief Secretary of the State of Orissa, was member of the Review Committee which made recommendation against the appellant for his premature retirement and in pursuance thereof the State Government had issued the impugned order. It appears that Shri Gian Chand had later been appointed as Chairman of the Administrative Tribunal. Shri Gian Chand participated in the proceedings of the Tribunal, and he is party to the decision of the Tribunal. These facts show that Mr. Gian Chand, who had administratively taken a decision against the appellant, considered the matter judicially as a Chairman of the Tribunal, thereby he acted as a judge of his own cause. While it is true that there is no allegation of personal bias against Shri Gian Chand, he may have acted bona fide, nonetheless, the principles of natural justice, fair play and judicial discipline required that he should have abstained from hearing the appellant's case. While considering the appellant's case the Tribunal exercised judicial powers and it was required to act judicially, as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and High Court have been excluded and vested in the Administrative Tribunal. The Members of the Tribunal must follow rules of natural justice in administering justice like Judges, they should not sit in judgment on their own decisions, Shri Gian Chand was disqualified to hear the appellant's case. The order of the Tribunal is vitiated on this ground...." 4. Now coming to the case at hand, it may be seen that Shri B.D. Pattanaik in the capacity of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax had disposed of the first appeals relating to the petitioner twice. Incidentally, when the Revenue filed second appeals before the Tribunal, he had become its Accounts Member and sat in judgment over his own order when he passed the same as the first appellate authority. It is true that there is no allegation of personal bias against him. He may have acted bona fide, nonetheless, the principle of natural justice, fair play and judicial discipline required that he should have abstained from hearing the second appeals. For the aforesaid reasons, he was disqualified to hear the second appeals as he should not have sat in judgment on his own decision. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of the Tribunal in second appeal Nos. For the aforesaid reasons, he was disqualified to hear the second appeals as he should not have sat in judgment on his own decision. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of the Tribunal in second appeal Nos. 1215 and 1216 of 1988-89 at annexure 2 cannot be supported by law and is hereby quashed. The matter has to go back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal according to law. We order accordingly. The writ application is accordingly allowed. C.P.K. MISRA, J.--I agree. Final Result : Allowed