Judgment :- The petitioner is an Advocate, who feels aggrieved by the adverse observations made against her, by the 1st respondent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur, in an order passed by it. Seeking to quash those adverse remarks, this Writ Petition is filed. The brief facts of the case are the following: 2. The petitioner, who is also a Government Pleader, was appearing for the Kerala State Housing Board in OPNo.426/00, on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur. The said O.P. was allowed by the forum, by Ext.P1 order dated 24.11.2004. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows: “In the result, the opposite parties are directed to return the original document to the complainant or in the alternative, if they are not able to trace out the original title deed of the complainant, issue necessary publication showing that the original document is irrecoverably lost and issue a certificate to that effect to the complainant for getting the certified copy of the title deed from the Registrar office along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation expense of Rs.500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order under section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.” 3. When the Housing Board failed to implement the said direction, the complainant filed EPNO.15/05. praying to issue arrest warrant against the Assistant Secretary of the Housing Board, for not obeying the above quoted direction. The said execution petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 order, by the Forum, on 19.08.2004. The prayer for issuing arrest warrant against the Secretary was rejected, but, it was ordered to take revenue recovery steps for realizing the compensation of Rs.5,000/- and the litigation expenses of Rs.500/-. While disposing of the E.P., the Forum made the following observations against the petitioner: “The interpretation made by the judgment debtor in the petition that since the title deed is given no compensation need be given is also seems to be a strange interpretation as we never heard of. While disposing of the E.P., the Forum made the following observations against the petitioner: “The interpretation made by the judgment debtor in the petition that since the title deed is given no compensation need be given is also seems to be a strange interpretation as we never heard of. With regard to that aspect, we are very sorry to say that the Advocate who is appearing is alleged to be a Government Pleader having 9 years’ experience in the Bar and is a lady who has not even gone through the C.P. Act or the C.P.C. provisions with regard to execution of order or decree under order XXI of CPC or the provisions of Consumer Protection Act with regard to execution of orders passed by the Consumer Forums. This petition itself is filed under Section 151 of CPC. The fundamental principle is that execution court cannot go beyond the decree order. That is applicable to consumer forums that the consumer forum cannot go beyond the order in execution under Section 25 or 27 of C.P.Act. The Forum has to invoke either Section 25 of 27 of C.P.Act in execution of order under the CP.Act. Normally, under C.P.Act, Advocates are allowed to appear with permission of the Forum. An ordinary prudent man who knows English or who gets a translation of the above order in the known language like a consumer may not feel any difficulty in understanding the meaning of the above order. We are further worried about the appointment of Govt. Pleader like the above Advocate because Government will lose the cases as the pleaders are not taking care in contesting cases and giving proper advice to parties. There is no reviewing or revisional power under the C.P.Act to the same district Forum which issued orders. ………. So, we are invoking Section 25 of the C.P.Act for getting the amount to the complainant under the R.R. Proceedings with a strong advice to the counsel at least to go through the C.P.Act before appearing for a consumer. 4. The petitioner submits, the above strictures were absolutely illegal, arbitrary and unwarranted and have been made without any bona fides. She also submits, the above strictures will affect her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. The petitioner submits, the above strictures were absolutely illegal, arbitrary and unwarranted and have been made without any bona fides. She also submits, the above strictures will affect her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner points out, if those strictures are not expunged, the same will affect her reputation and also her profession as an Advocate. So, praying to expunge or quash those strictures, this Writ Petition is filed. Though, notice was served on the respondents, no one appeared for respondents 1 to 4. 5. I heard learned counsel Mr. Kaleeswaram Raj for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader Mr. M.A. Fayaz, appearing for the 5th respondent Kerala State. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Mohammed Naim (AIR 1964 SC 703, R.K. Lakshmanan v. A.K. Srinivasan (AIR 1975 SC 1741). Jaya Ram, Inspector of Police v. Hans Raj. (AIR 1972 SC 1140.), Niranjan Patnaik v. Sasibhusan Kar (AIR 1986 SC 819), S.K. Viswambharan v. E. Koyakunju (1987(2) SCC 109), Dr. Dilipkumar Deka v. State of Assam (1996 (6) SCC 234), State of Gujarat v. K.V. Joseph (2001(2) SCC 156), Samya Sett v. Shambhu Sarkar (2005(6) SCC 767), C.S. Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka (2005 (4) SCC 81), S.K. Bhatt v. State of U.P. (2005 (3) SCC 634). State of A.P. V. Janardhana Rao (2005 (1) SCC 360), Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan (2003 (7) SCC 546) and State of M.P. v. K.K. Shukla (2001 (10) SCC 195) and submitted that the aforementioned adverse observations are liable to be set aside, in view of the principles laid down in the above said authorities. 6. The leading decision of the Apex Court on judicial strictures is in Mohammed Naim’s case (AIR 1964 SC 703) mentioned above. His Lordship S.K. Das, J. speaking for the Court said. “If there is one principle of cardinal importance in the administration of justice, it is this: the proper freedom and independence of Judges and Magistrates must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform their functions freely and fearlessly and without undue interference by any body, even by this Court. At the same time, it is equally necessary that in expressing their opinions, Judges and Magistrates must be guided by considerations of justice, fair play and restraint. At the same time, it is equally necessary that in expressing their opinions, Judges and Magistrates must be guided by considerations of justice, fair play and restraint. It is not infrequent that sweeping generalizations defeat the very purpose for which they are made. It has been judicially recognized that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law in cases to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself (b) whether there is evidence or record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognized that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve.” 7. In State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal [1986 (4) SCC 566], the Apex Court stated as follows: “We may observe in conclusion that judges should not use strong and carping language while criticizing the conduct of parties or their witnesses. They must act with sobriety, moderation and restraint. They must have the humility to recognize that they are not infallible and any harsh and disparaging strictures passed by them against any party may be mistaken and unjustified and if so, they may do considerable harm and mischief and result in injustice.” 8. In A.M. Mathur v. Pramod Kumar Gupta [1990 (2) SCC 533). It was held by the Apex Court as follows: “The Judge’s Bench is a seat of power. Not only do judges have power to make binding decision, their decisions legitimate the use of power by other officials. The judges have the absolute and unchallengeable control of the court domain. But, they cannot misuse their authority by intemperate comments, undignified banter or scathing criticism of counsel, parties or witnesses. Not only do judges have power to make binding decision, their decisions legitimate the use of power by other officials. The judges have the absolute and unchallengeable control of the court domain. But, they cannot misuse their authority by intemperate comments, undignified banter or scathing criticism of counsel, parties or witnesses. We concede that the court has the inherent power to act freely upon its own conviction on any matter coming before it for adjudication, but it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that derogatory remarks ought not to be made against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration unless it is absolutely necessary for the decision of the case to animadvert on their conduct.” 9. The Honourable Supreme Court, in State of Gujarat v. K.V. Joseph (2001 (2) SCC 156), held as follows: “In any event, we do feel however, to record that the language used is rather strong and as noticed above, restraint and use of temperate language ought to be the basic criteria in the judicial approach. The violation of the principle of natural justice also has been contended by reason of the fact that no notice was sent in the matter for the purposes of any explanation neither any explanation obtained. The Court passes an order on the basis of the available materials and upon affording the reasonable opportunity of hearing and in the event, there is any deprivation in regard thereto, affectation of the cause of justice would be the effect.” 10. In K’ A Judicial Officer. In re, [2001 (3) SCC 54]. The Honourable Supreme Court observed as follows: “Several cases are coming to our notice wherein observations are being made against the members of subordinate judiciary in the orders of superior forums made on judicial side and judicial officers who made orders as Presiding Judges of the subordinate courts are being driven to the necessity of filing appeals to this Court or petitions before the High Courts seeking expunging of remarks or observations made and sometimes strictures passed against them behind their back. We would therefore like to deal with a few aspects touching the making of observations or adverse comments against judicial officers and methodology to be followed if it becomes necessary. We would therefore like to deal with a few aspects touching the making of observations or adverse comments against judicial officers and methodology to be followed if it becomes necessary. A Judge entrusted with the task of administering justice should be bold and feel fearless while acting judicially and giving expression to his views and constructing his judgment or order. It should be no deterrent to formation and expression of an honest opinion and acting thereon so long as it is within four-corners of law that any action taken by a subordinate judicial officer is open to scrutiny in judicial review before a superior forum with which its opinion may not meet approval and the superior court may upset his action or opinion. The availability of such fearlessnesses is essential for the maintenance of judicial independence. However, sobriety, cool, calm and poise should be reflected in every action and expression of a Judge.” 11. The Apex Court in Arun Devendra Oza v. State of Gujarat [2001 (10) SCC 195]. Dealing with the adverse observations against a learned Advocate, relied on the above quoted decision and expunged the adverse remarks against him. The relevant portion of the said Judgment reads as follows: “As a matter of fact, excepting the introductory paragraph, the entire four-page judgment contains disparaging remarks about the advocate concerned. We have had the occasion to look at a Photostat copy of the original petition which is said to have been underlined by the learned single Judge himself. It is true that there are certain typographical errors but the same are not such as to warrant remarks from the court about the efficiency or lack of knowledge of English literature (sic language) and that of law so far as the advocate is concerned. It is rather unfortunate that what is noticed above has not been kept in view. We would like to highlight that there should be a proper amity between the Bench and the Bar rather than any element of arrogance or superiority on one side. Proper coherence will bring the best out of the judiciary and make the justice delivery system of the country more effective. We are anguished at the writings of the learned Single Judge and we sincerely hope that this attitude would come to an end with this matter only and there would not be any repetition of the same. Proper coherence will bring the best out of the judiciary and make the justice delivery system of the country more effective. We are anguished at the writings of the learned Single Judge and we sincerely hope that this attitude would come to an end with this matter only and there would not be any repetition of the same. We may record that in the past some such incidents have also happened and this Court had to intervene in one or two matters earlier. With these observations as above, we do feel it expedient to delete the entire judgment, excepting however, the order portion which reads: ‘Hence leave granted. Appeal admitted.’ The appeal thus stands disposed.” 12. In Samya Sett v. Shambhu Sarkar [2005 (6) SCC 767]. It was held as follows: “It is universally accepted and we are conscious of the fact that judges are also human beings. They have their own likes and dislikes; their preferences and prejudices. Dealing with an allegation of bias against a Judge in Linahan, Re Frank, J stated: “If however, bias and partiality be defined to mean the total absence of preconceptions in the mind of the Judge, then, no one has ever had a fair trial, and no one ever will. The human mind, even at infancy, is no blank piece of paper. We are born with predispositions and the processes of education, formal and informal, create attitudes which precede reasoning in particular instances and which, therefore, by definition are prejudices. Justice John Clarke has once stated: “I have never known any judges, no difference how austere of manner, who discharged their judicial duties in an atmosphere of pure, unadulterated reason. Alas! We are al the common growth of the Mother Earth –even those of us who wear the long robe. Similar was the view of Thomas Reed Powell, who said: ‘Judges have preferences for social policies as you and I. They form their judgments after the varying fashions in which you and I form ours. They have hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions. Similar was the view of Thomas Reed Powell, who said: ‘Judges have preferences for social policies as you and I. They form their judgments after the varying fashions in which you and I form ours. They have hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions. They are warmed by the same winter and summer and by the same ideas as a layman is .’ In the present case, however, as we have already noted in the earlier part of the judgment, whether the order passed by the appellant was correct or not, but the remarks made, stictures passed and directions issued by the learned Single Judge of the High court against the appellant were improper, uncalled for an unwarranted. Apart from the fact that they were neither necessary for deciding the controversy raised before the Court nor an integral part of the Judgment, in the facts and circumstances of the case, they were not justified. We, therefore, direct deletion of those remarks.” 13. All the above decisions unanimously condemn training Judicial gun, at the drop of the hat, on the unsuspecting parties. Going by the principles laid down in the above authorities, I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned strictures passed by the 1st respondent against the petitioner are unwarranted. The view taken by the petitioner on the effect of the directions issued in Ext.P1, is also a plausible view. This observation may not be understood as fettering the powers of the State Commission in considering on merits, the appeal stated to have been filed by the Housing Board against the orders of the District Forum,. Further, the strictures were passed without putting the petitioner on notice. Those disparaging remarks were totally unwarranted for the disposal of the case. There were no materials on record also, to support the view expressed by the District Forum against the petitioner. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. The strictures contained in Ext.P2, which are challenged by the petitioner are expunged. No costs.