Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1160 (BOM)

Sunil Shamraoji Shinde v. State of Maharashtra

2006-07-27

R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, S.R.DONGAONKAR

body2006
R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.: - Heard. 2. This order shall dispose of the application filed by the State for modification of the order dated 7th June, 2006 passed in the above Writ Petition as also the application filed by Shri. Arun Bhatia, opposing the request by the State for modification of the said order. 3. On 22nd February, 2006, the petitioner requested for an order appointing an inquiry committee to scrutinise all the allotments made by the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, hereinafter called as "the said Act", in order to assist the Court to verify whether the pieces of land which were declared surplus under the said Act have been utilised for the purpose for which the said Act has been enacted and whether the allotments have been done in accordance with the provisions of law. The respondent/State was directed to show cause, if any, against the appointment of such inquiry committee or one man committee. The matter was then adjourned to 13th March, 2006 on which day, the learned AGP sought time to take necessary instructions in the matter and the matter was adjourned to 21st April, 2006. Again on 21st April, 2006, the learned AGP sought further time to take necessary instructions in the matter and the matter was then adjourned to 7th June, 2006. 4. On 7th June, 2006, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned AGP, on instructions, informed the Court that the State has no objection for appointment of one man committee and further requested that an officer of the rank of Secretary in the State Government or a retired person having experience and knowledge in the field may be appointed as one man committee, to which the petitioner also agreed. The learned advocate for the petitioner thereupon suggested the name of Shri. Arun Bhatia, IAS (retired), for an appointment of One - man Committee. While accepting the said name, the order was passed appointing Shri. Arun Bhatia as one man committee to conduct inquiry in respect of the subject matter of the petition i.e. implementation of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in Nagpur Urban Agglomeration and particularly on the aspect of allotment of surplus land by the State to individuals or institutions and whether it has been done in accordance with the purpose and object of the said Act. Simultaneously, it was left to the discretion of Shri. Bhatia to examine, various aspects co - related with implementation of the said Act and the allotment of surplus land which in his opinion would assist the Court in deciding the petition. Obviously, the Government was given direction to provide all the necessary assistance to enable Shri. Bhatia to complete the inquiry and to submit the report within a period of three months. 5. On 20th June, 2006, the respondent/State filed an application being Civil Application No.3575 of 2006 requesting for modification of the said order thereby to recall, the order of appointing Shri. Bhatia as one man committee and in his place to appoint any other person amongst the list of retired IAS officers or the High Court Judges submitted by the Government. In fact, the Government has not submitted any such list alongwith the said application. When the matter came up for hearing on 21st June, 2006, consequent to the said application by the Government, the learned advocate for the petitioner who had suggested the name of Shri. Bhatia for an appointment of one man inquiry committee was requested by the Court to ascertain from Shri. Bhatia whether he would like to recuse (sic - excuse) himself from being the one man inquiry committee in view of the objection by the Government for he being the inquiry officer, and accordingly the matter was adjourned to 23rd June, 2006 on which day, the learned advocate for the petitioner informed the Court that as per his instructions, Shri. Bhatia was reluctant to recuse (sic - excuse) himself from being the one man inquiry committee. On the very day, an application was also filed by Shri. Bhatia being Affidavit Stamp No.9715 of 2006. The matter was thereupon taken up on 27th and 30th June, 2006 but it was adjourned by consent for arguments to 18th July, 2006. Meanwhile, Shri. Bhatia filed further affidavit on 17th July, 2006, so also the State Government filed the list of names of the retired Secretaries for consideration of appointment of one man inquiry committee in place of Shri. Bhatia. Likewise, the petitioner also filed the list of retired officers and Judges, in response to the inquiry by the Court in that regard. 6. Likewise, the petitioner also filed the list of retired officers and Judges, in response to the inquiry by the Court in that regard. 6. We have heard at length the learned Advocate General Shri. Ravi Kadam, Shri. V. R. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel, and Shri. Anand Parchure, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. 7. The order of appointing Shri. Bhatia as one man inquiry committee is sought to be modified on behalf of the State on the following grounds: - (i) The learned AGP had sought time for conveying the Government about appointment of Shri. Arun Bhatia before passing the order dated 7th June, 2006. However, the Court did not think it fit to grant time for the said purpose and proceeded to appoint Shri. Bhatia as one man committee. (ii) Neither the learned AGP nor the Government had tried to ponder over the proposal for appointment of Shri. Bhatia as one man committee before passing the order dated 7th June, 2006. (iii) The appointment of Shri. Bhatia as one man committee would not subserve the ends of justice as Shri. Bhatia has reasons to grind an axe with the Government and those working in the Government. 8. The said grounds for modification of the order dated 7th June, 2006 are sought to be made good with reference to the following material: - (a) There were charges of misconduct framed against Shri. Bhatia and on conclusion of regular departmental inquiry, those charges have been proved and the entire inquiry report has been submitted with recommendations to the Central Government for an appropriate action which is awaited, and therefore, Shri. Bhatia has a reason to have prejudice against the Government of Maharashtra and those working in the Government. (b) Shri. Bhatia contested the Parliamentary Election (2004) from Pune Constituency and various issues were raised by him against the Government of Maharashtra and those working in the Government; he had also expressed anger with the political parties including the Indian National Congress and thus, Shri. Bhatia became a political figure during that election with likes and dislikes, and against the Government and those working in the Government. 9. On the other hand, Shri. Bhatia in his Affidavit St. No.9715 of 2006 filed on 26th June. 2006 has stated that the allegations against him have not been proved and no final order has yet been passed. 9. On the other hand, Shri. Bhatia in his Affidavit St. No.9715 of 2006 filed on 26th June. 2006 has stated that the allegations against him have not been proved and no final order has yet been passed. He has further submitted that the same charges were also sent for inquiry to Anti Corruption Bureau which gave its report that the investigation was closed as there was no case of corruption involved in the matter. He has, also stated that the Government has bias against him as he could get the order of his transfer issued by the previous Chief Minister cancelled pursuant to the order in that regard by the High Court. He has denied the allegation that he is politician and has further stated that merely because he had been a candidate in one election, he could not be called as a practising politician. He has further suggested that he is prepared to be a member of the Two - men Committee in which case, he would work without claiming any fee or remuneration. He has further requested that withdrawal of his name from the said committee would disgrace him and it would be an act of cowardice, and therefore, he has prayed that he should be retained as the committee member for the concerned inquiry. He has also filed further affidavit dated 14th July, 2006 giving various instances of irregularities allegedly disclosing involvement of the Government or those working in the Government in causing such irregularities. 10. The points for consideration which arise in the matter are: (1) Whether the apprehension of the State Government that Shri. Bhatia is biased against the Government and the persons in the Government is reasonable, genuine and justifiable? (2) Whether on such ground of bias the order dated 7th June, 2006 needs to be modified and Shri. Bhatia needs to be replaced by any other person for the one man inquiry committee in the matter in hand? 11. (2) Whether on such ground of bias the order dated 7th June, 2006 needs to be modified and Shri. Bhatia needs to be replaced by any other person for the one man inquiry committee in the matter in hand? 11. Before answering the above points, it is pertinent to note that while appointing Shri. Bhatia as one - man inquiry committee, it was, specifically clarified in the said order that the said committee has to conduct inquiry in respect of the subject matter of the petition, i.e. implementation of the said Act in Nagpur Urban Agglomeration and particularly on the aspect of allotment of surplus land by the State to individuals and institutions and whether it has been done in accordance with the purpose and object of the said Act, while leaving it to the discretion of the committee to examine various aspects co - related with the implementation of the said Act and allotment of surplus land which, in its opinion, would assist the Court in deciding the petition. Obviously, therefore, it is a fact finding committee constituted in order to get all relevant materials before the Court to enable the Court to deal with the grievances made in the petition and to take appropriate decision in that regard. Undoubtedly, the Committee has been given discretion to the limited extent, i.e. to examine various aspects co - related with the implementation of the said Act and allotment of surplus land. However, the discretion is not to decide anything but only to collect the relevant information and the material in relation to the implementation of the said Act, and in particular, the allotment of surplus land under the said Act. In other words, the scope of the work of the committee is to collect necessary data and materials which will assist the Court to arrive at just and proper decision in the matter with relation to the issues involved in the matter. 12. It is also necessary to take note of the fact that the request for appointment of inquiry committee was to scrutinise all allotments made under the said Act in order to verify whether the pieces of land, which were declared as the surplus under the said Act, have been allotted in accordance with the provisions of law. 12. It is also necessary to take note of the fact that the request for appointment of inquiry committee was to scrutinise all allotments made under the said Act in order to verify whether the pieces of land, which were declared as the surplus under the said Act, have been allotted in accordance with the provisions of law. It was pursuant to the said application and after requiring the respondent/State to show cause as to why such committee should not be appointed and pursuant to the no objection in that regard by the respondent/State, the order dated 7th June, 2006 came to be passed. 13. The learned Advocate General drawing our attention to the decisions in the matter of Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.G.C.) Ltd. Vs. Lannon & Others, reported in (1969)1 Q.B. 577; P. K. Ghosh, I.A.S. & Another Vs. J. G. Rajput, reported in (1995)6 SCC 744 ; Kumaon Mandai Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Girja Shankar Pant & Others, reported in (2001)1 SCC 182 ; Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia, Capital Transit Company and Washington Transit Radio, Inc. V s. Franklin S. Pollak and Guy Martin, reported in 343 US 451 and A. K. Kraipak & Others Vs. Union of India & Others, reported in 1969(2) SCC 262 , submitted that if the enquiry officer has a mindset of animus against one of the parties to the inquiry then the entire inquiry proceedings would stand vitiated. He further submitted that the point relating to the bias is to be appreciated from the point of view of a reasonable person who would think on the basis of the circumstances disclosed that the concerned officer is likely to be prejudiced person, and then it should be considered as sufficient to hold that the officer is biased against the concerned party. Referring to the affidavit, filed by Shri. Bhatia, the learned Advocate General, submitted that the same discloses a clear case of biased mind of the officer against the Government. The very heading of the application assumes that he has been appointed to inquire into the alleged corruption in distribution of land under the said Act when in fact the order of 7th June, 2006 specifically refers to the inquiry as to whether the allotment has been made in accordance with the provisions of law or not. The very heading of the application assumes that he has been appointed to inquire into the alleged corruption in distribution of land under the said Act when in fact the order of 7th June, 2006 specifically refers to the inquiry as to whether the allotment has been made in accordance with the provisions of law or not. This misconception about the scope of inquiry and the purpose for e which he has been appointed as one man inquiry committee in the mind of Shri. Bhatia itself discloses a predisposition on the part of Shri. Bhatia to find fault with the Government or those in the Government in relation to distribution of land. It is further apparent, according to the learned Advocate General, from the paragraph 11 of the application wherein there is a categorical statement that the Government opposes the appointment of Shri. Bhatia as the inquiry officer "because it fears the exposure of its corruption". This very allegation discloses that Shri. Bhatia has already made up his mind that there is a corruption involved in the allotment of land. It is further evident from the said paragraph that "the Government is an interested party with a vested interest and therefore should not be permitted to discard an officer that it fears. The apprehension of the Government about Shri. Bhatia being biased against the Government is further strengthened by the prayer in his application where he has stated that "this would serve the interests of the corrupt and defeat the purpose of the enquiry." This, according to the learned Advocate General, apparently discloses a preconceived idea about the involvement of corruption in the allotment of land. The tone of the application speaks more eloquently of the mindset of the said Shri. Bhatia. 14. Shri. V. R. Manohar, the learned senior counsel, while making grievance about choosing to file an application for modification of the order dated 7th June, 2006 only after change in the constitution of the bench hearing the matter, submitted that the bias, if any, in the case in hand, lies at the door of the Government, and not the officer. Shri. V. R. Manohar, the learned senior counsel, while making grievance about choosing to file an application for modification of the order dated 7th June, 2006 only after change in the constitution of the bench hearing the matter, submitted that the bias, if any, in the case in hand, lies at the door of the Government, and not the officer. He further submitted that considering the scope of the inquiry by the committee and the purpose for which it is constituted, the issue of bias sought to be raised is totally irrelevant, in as much as that even assuming that Shri. Bhatia has bias against the Government, the same does not impeach his role as inquiry officer, as he is appointed merely to examine records and to submit the report with his observations which would be subject to the proper scrutiny by the Court and appropriate decision by the Court after hearing the parties. It is merely, an attempt to scuttle the inquiry. He further submitted that the appointment of Shri. Bhatia being sui generis, the question of State objecting to the same does not arise. In fact, the State has no locus to object to such appointment. Referring to the grounds on which the bias is sought to be alleged, the learned senior counsel submitted that the apprehension, should be based on factual and legal basis and it should be reasonable, genuine and justifiable. The things which are done in performance of routine duties and exercise of powers cannot be a ground to allege the bias. In the case in hand, according to the learned senior counsel, the application nowhere discloses factual matrix to justify the allegation of bias. It is merely an apprehension, baseless and unreasonable. Contesting the election can be no ground to accuse a person to be a politician. In that sense, even the voters can be accused of being the politicians. He has sought to rely upon the decisions in the matter of Paramjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in 1998(5) Scale 219 ; A. P. Pollution Control Board Vs. Prof. M. V. Nayadu (Retd.) & Ors., reported in 1999(1) Scale 140 ; G. N. Nayak Vs. He has sought to rely upon the decisions in the matter of Paramjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in 1998(5) Scale 219 ; A. P. Pollution Control Board Vs. Prof. M. V. Nayadu (Retd.) & Ors., reported in 1999(1) Scale 140 ; G. N. Nayak Vs. Goa University & Ors., reported in (2002)2 SCC 712 : [2002(2) ALL MR 224 (S.C.)]; R. Balakrishna Pillai V s. State of Kerala, reported in (2000)7 SCC 129 : [2000 ALL MR (Cri) 1519 (S.C.)] and State of Punjab Vs. V. K. Khanna & Ors., reported in (2001)2 SCC 330 . 15. In Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.G.C.) Ltd.'s case (supra), the Queens Bench had held that "a man may be disqualified from sitting in a judicial capacity on one of two grounds. First, a "direct pecuniary interest" in the subject - matter. Second, "bias" in favour of one side or against the other." As regards the bias, it was observed that "it was acknowledged that there was no actual bias on the part of Mr. Lannon, and no want of good faith. But it was said that there was; albeit unconscious, a real likelihood of bias." While observing that the law on the said aspect of the matter was not very clear, the following ruling by Lord Hewart C.J. in Rex Vs. Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy was reiterated that "it is not merely of some importance, but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should, manifestly, and undoubtedly be seen to be done." It was further held that "in considering whether there was a real likelihood of bias, the court does not look at the mind of the justice himself or at the mind of the chairman of the tribunal, or whoever it may be, who sits in a judicial capacity. It does not look to see if there was a real likelihood that he would, or did, in fact favour one side at the expenses of the other. The court looks at the impression which would be given to other people. Even if he was as impartial as could be, nevertheless if right minded persons would think that, in the circumstances, there was a real likelihood of bias on his part, then he should not sit. The court looks at the impression which would be given to other people. Even if he was as impartial as could be, nevertheless if right minded persons would think that, in the circumstances, there was a real likelihood of bias on his part, then he should not sit. And if he does sit, his decision cannot stand." It was also held that "there must be circumstances from which a reasonable man would think it likely or probable that the justice, or chairman, as the case may be, would, or did, favour one side unfairly at the expense of the other. The court will not inquire whether he did, in fact, favour one side unfairly. Suffice it that reasonable people might think he did. The reason is plain enough. Justice must be rooted in confidence: and confidence is destroyed when right - minded people go away thinking: "The judge was biased". 16. In P. K. Ghosh's case (supra), while expressing dissatisfaction for the Judge having proceeded for hearing the contempt petition inspite of the specific objection which could not be called unreasonable on undisputed facts and further having passed the order accepting, the opposite party's contentions, the Apex Court held that "ordinarily, at least at that stage it should have been appreciated that the more appropriate course for him to adopt was to rescue himself from the Bench hearing this contempt petition, even if it did not occur, to him to take that step earlier when he began hearing it." It was held that "if there be a basis which cannot be treated as unreasonable for a litigant to expect that his matter should not be heard by a particular Judge and there is no compelling necessity, such as the absence of an alternative, it is appropriate that the learned Judge should recuse himself from the Bench hearing that matter. This step is required to be taken by the learned Judge not because he is likely to be influenced in any manner in doing justice in the cause, but because his hearing the matter is likely to give rise to a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that the mind of the learned Judge - maybe subconsciously - has been influenced by some extraneous factor in making the decision, particularly if it happens to be in favour of, the opposite party." It was ruled that "credibility in the functioning of the justice delivery system and the reasonable perception of the affected parties are relevant considerations to ensure the continuance of public confidence in the credibility and impartiality of the judiciary. This is necessary not only for doing justice but also for ensuring that justice is seen to be done." 17. In Kumaon Mandai Vikas Nigam Ltd.'s case (supra), it was ruled that "mere general statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of indication of ill - will. There must be cogent evidence available on record to come to the conclusion as to whether in fact there was existing a bias which resulted in the miscarriage of justice." After taking note of the earlier decisions including the decision in the matters of S. Parthasarathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1974)3 SCC 459 ; Franklin Vs. Minister of Town and Country Planning, (1947)2 ALL ER 289; R. Vs. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No.2), (2000)1 AC 119; Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. Vs. Bayfield Properties Ltd., 2000 QB 451, it was held thus: - "The test, therefore, is as to whether a mere apprehension of bias or there being a real danger of bias and it is on this score that the surrounding circumstances must and ought to be collated and necessary conclusion drawn therefrom - in the event however the conclusion is otherwise inescapable that there is existing a real danger of bias, the administrative action cannot be sustained. If on the other hand, the allegations pertaining to bias is rather fanciful and otherwise to avoid a particular court, Tribunal or authority, question of declaring them to be unsustainable would not arise. The requirement is availability of positive and cogent evidence and it is in this context that we do record our concurrence with the view expressed by the Court of Appeal in Locabail case. The requirement is availability of positive and cogent evidence and it is in this context that we do record our concurrence with the view expressed by the Court of Appeal in Locabail case. " 18. In Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia's case (supra), the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Frankfurter of United States had ruled thus: "There is a good deal of shallow talk that the judicial robe does not change the man within it. It does. The fact is that on the whole judges do lay aside private views in discharging their judicial functions. This is achieved through training, professional habits, self - discipline and that fortunate alchemy by which men are loyal to the obligation with which they are entrusted. But it is also true that reason cannot control the subconscious influence of feelings of which it is unaware. When there is ground for believing that such unconscious feeling may operate in the ultimate judgment, or may not unfairly lead others to believe they are operating, judges recuse themselves. They do not sit in judgment. They do this for a variety of reasons. The guiding consideration is that the administration of justice should reasonably appear to be disinterested as well as be so in fact." 19. In A. K. Kraipak's case (supra), the Apex Court, while dealing with a situation wherein a person who is to be considered for selection is himself appointed as a member of the Selection Board, held that in those circumstances it is difficult to believe that such a person would act impartially, and in that regard observed that: "the real question is not whether he was biased. It is difficult to prove the state of mind of person. Therefore what we have to see is whether there is reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased. We agree with the learned Attorney General that a mere suspicion of bias is not sufficient. There must be a reasonable likelihood of bias. In deciding the question of bias we have to take into consideration human probabilities and ordinary course of human conduct." It was further held that : - "In a group deliberation each member of the group is bound to influence the others, more so, if the member concerned is a person with special knowledge. His bias is likely to operate in a subtle manner. His bias is likely to operate in a subtle manner. It is no wonder that the other members of the selection board are unaware of the extent to which his opinion influenced their conclusions." 20. In Paramjit Kaur's case (supra), the Apex Court, in a case where the Apex Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution had entrusted National Human Rights Commission to deal with certain matters in the manner indicated in the course of its order held that "all authorities in the country are bound by the directions of this Court and have to act in aid of this Court. National Human Rights Commission is no exception. The Commission would function pursuant to the directions issued by this Court and not under the Act under which it is constituted. In deciding the matters referred by this Court, National Human Rights Commission is given a free hand and is not circumscribed by any conditions. Therefore, the jurisdiction exercised by the National Human Rights Commission in these matters is of a special nature not covered by enactment or law, and thus acts sui generis.” 21. In A. P. Pollution Control Board's case (supra), while dealing with the issue as to whether the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can make reference to the National Environmental Appellate Authority under the 1997 Act for investigation and opinion, held that with a view to ensure that there is neither danger of environment nor to ecology and at the same time ensuring sustainable development, the Court can refer scientific and technical aspects for investigation and opinion to expert bodies such as the Appellate Authority under the National Environmental Appellate Authority Act, 1997 and any opinion rendered by such authority would of course be subject to approval of the Court. It was further held that on the analogy of Paramjit Kaur's case, such a procedure, is perfectly within the bounds of the law and can be adopted in matters arising before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. In G. N. Nayak's case [2002(2) ALL MR 224 (S.C.)] (supra), the Apex Court dealing with the issue of bias, while highlighting the necessity of every person or authority to act in judicial or quasi - judicial matters impartially, while quoting with approval the ruling by Frank, J. in Linahan, Re. 22. In G. N. Nayak's case [2002(2) ALL MR 224 (S.C.)] (supra), the Apex Court dealing with the issue of bias, while highlighting the necessity of every person or authority to act in judicial or quasi - judicial matters impartially, while quoting with approval the ruling by Frank, J. in Linahan, Re. (1943)138 F2d 650, held that "if however, 'bias' and 'partially' 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." 23. In the same decision in the matter of G. N. Nayak's case [2002(2) ALL MR 224 (S.C.)] (supra), the Apex Court specifically ruled thus : - "It is not every kind of bias which in law is taken to vitiate an act. It must be a prejudice which is not founded on reason, and actuated by self - interest - whether pecuniary or personal. Because of this element of personal interest, bias is also seen as an extension of the principles of natural justice that no man should be a judge in his own cause. Being a state of mind, a bias is sometimes impossible to determine. Therefore, the courts have evolved the principle that it is sufficient for a litigant to successfully impugn an action by establishing a reasonable possibility of bias or proving circumstances from which the operation of influences affecting a fair assessment of the merits of the case can be inferred." It was further held thus : - "Every preference does not vitiate an action. If it is rational and unaccompanied by considerations of personal interest, pecuniary or otherwise, it would not vitiate a decision. For example, if a senior officer expresses appreciation of the work of a junior in the confidential report, it would not amount to bias nor would it preclude that senior officer from being part of the Departmental Promotion Committee to consider such junior officer along with others for promotion." 24. For example, if a senior officer expresses appreciation of the work of a junior in the confidential report, it would not amount to bias nor would it preclude that senior officer from being part of the Departmental Promotion Committee to consider such junior officer along with others for promotion." 24. In R. Balakrishna Pillai's case [2000 ALL MR (Cri) 1519 (S.C.)] (supra), it was ruled, by the Apex Court "a mere allegation that there is apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case is not sufficient. Before transferring the case, the court has to find out whether the apprehension appears to be reasonable. To judge the reasonableness of the apprehension, the state of mind of the person who entertains the apprehension is no doubt relevant but that is not all. The apprehension must appear to the court to be reasonable, genuine and justifiable." 25. In V. K. Khanna's case (supra), the Apex Court has taken stock of its various earlier decisions as well as of the decisions of the Foreign Courts, while dealing with the concept of fairness in the administrative action, and has held that the test is whether there is a mere apprehension of bias or there is a real danger of bias and it is on this score that the surrounding circumstances must and ought to be collated and necessary conclusion drawn therefrom. In the event, the conclusion is otherwise that there is existing a real danger of bias administrative action cannot be, sustained. On the other hand, if the allegations pertain to rather fanciful apprehension in administrative action, question of declaring them to be unsustainable on the basis therefor, would not arise. Before arriving at the said conclusion, the Apex Court has extensively referred to its earlier decisions in the matters of S. Parthasarathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1974)3 SCC 459 and of the decision of the Court of Appeal of England in Locabail (U.K.) Ltd. Vs. Bayfield Properties Ltd., 2000 QB 451. It also held therein that it is now well settled that mere general statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of indication of ill will. There must be cogent evidence available on record to come to the conclusion as to whether, in fact, there exists a bias or mala fide which would result in the miscarriage of justice. 26. It also held therein that it is now well settled that mere general statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of indication of ill will. There must be cogent evidence available on record to come to the conclusion as to whether, in fact, there exists a bias or mala fide which would result in the miscarriage of justice. 26. It is thus abundantly clear that it is not only in case of a decision by a Judge or an authority that it is expected to be by a person without having any bias against or in favour of any of the parties to the proceedings but the absence of bias is required to be seen and/or felt in the entire process of adjudication including the stage of enquiry and which culminates into a decision. If the allegation of bias is disclosed, at any stage of adjudication, it can indirectly affect the decision making process which can vitiate the decision itself. Albeit, it is not mere allegation of bias, but the apprehension in that regard to be based on materials on record, on consideration whereof a reasonable man would think it probable or likely that the adjudicating officer or any person directly or indirectly involved in the whole process of adjudication or any part thereof is prejudiced against one party or the other, or that he is likely to entertain bias against one person or the other. If the factual matrix, being cogent material, placed on record is sufficient for a reasonable man to believe bonafide that the concerned authority or officer is likely to be biased against one of the parties, it would be sufficient to hold that the apprehension is reasonable, genuine and justifiable. 27. Bearing in mind the law on the point in issue, therefore, if one analysis the records in relation to the basis for apprehension on behalf of the Government that Shri. Bhatia has bias against the Government or those working in the Government, two things have been referred in support of such apprehension and they are: - (i) Disciplinary inquiry held against Shri. Bhatia, and (ii) Shri. Bhatia had contested the Parliamentary Election. 28. 28. As far as disciplinary inquiry is concerned, it is the case of the Government itself that it is on the basis of certain charges levelled against Shri. Bhatia and on conclusion of proper departmental inquiry, certain recommendations have been made by the Government. Undoubtedly, it is not and cannot be the case of the Government that there is any illegality on the part of the Government in initiating or holding such inquiry against Shri. Bhatia. Merely because a disciplinary action has been taken against the officer, that by itself can hardly be said to be a ground to apprehend that it will lead to a bias against the Government or all those working in the Government. Certainly, such inquiry must have been initiated on the basis of certain facts perceived by a particular authority and based on the finding arrived at by such an authority, and the same must have been initiated and conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the statutory law. If aggrieved by the decision in such proceedings, the delinquent can challenge the same in the Court of Law. Being so, merely because such quasi judicial proceedings are proceeded against Shri. Bhatia, that by itself can by no stretch of imagination be held to be a ground to hold that he will be biased against the entire Government or against all those working in the Government. If at all there is any bias, the same could be against one or two individuals who might have taken the ultimate decision in that regard. The bias against one or two individuals in such proceedings cannot be construed as bias against the entire Government or all the persons working in the Government. 29. As regards the participation in election, merely because a person has exercised his statutory right to contest the general election, it can hardly be construed as sufficient to label such person as a political figure. It is not the contention of the State Government that even after having lost the election, Shri. Bhatia continued to take part in political activities in the State and against the Government or those who are in the Government. Being so, merely because in 2004, Shri. Bhatia had contested the election, that by itself can hardly be a ground to conclude that he has bias against the Government. 30. Being so, merely because in 2004, Shri. Bhatia had contested the election, that by itself can hardly be a ground to conclude that he has bias against the Government. 30. Both grounds disclosed in the application, cannot be sufficient to apprehend any sort of bias being entertained by Shri. Bhatia against the Government or the persons in the Government. 31. As regards the contention of the Government that it did not get opportunity to ponder over the proposal for appointment of Shri. Bhatia as one man inquiry committee, it is to be noted that there was no question of any opportunity in that regard to be afforded to the parties. It is entirely in the discretion of the Court to identify the person who should inquire into the matter. Undoubtedly, the parties are entitled to express their views. That however does not mean that the parties can insist for appointment of a particular person or only one of those whose names are suggested by the parties. It is entirely for the Court to identify the person who should be the one man inquiry committee. Being so, there was no question of giving any opportunity either to the learned AGP or to the Government to ponder over the proposal for appointment of Shri. Bhatia as the one man enquiry committee. It is pertinent to note that the application by the State Government for modification of the order dated 7th June, 2006 nowhere discloses any allegation of Jack of integrity or lack of expertise to Shri. Bhatia to inquire into the matter in hand. As already observed above, the grounds disclosed in support of the alleged bias are without any basis. Being so, the application filed by the Government is liable to be dismissed. However, the matter does not end with the dismissal of the said application. 32. The application and the affidavit which have been filed by Shri. Bhatia, undoubtedly, disclose certain statements which indeed, as rightly submitted by the learned Advocate General, reveal the mindset of Shri. Bhatia. The heading of the application by Shri. Bhatia reads thus: - "APPLICATION REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF APPLICANT, ARUN BHATIA, (RETD. 32. The application and the affidavit which have been filed by Shri. Bhatia, undoubtedly, disclose certain statements which indeed, as rightly submitted by the learned Advocate General, reveal the mindset of Shri. Bhatia. The heading of the application by Shri. Bhatia reads thus: - "APPLICATION REGARDING APPOINTMENT OF APPLICANT, ARUN BHATIA, (RETD. IAS) AS A ONE MEMBER COMMITTEE TO ENQUIRE IMTO THE ALLEGED, CORRUPTION IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF LAND UNDER THE URBAN LAND CEILING ACT, IN NAGPUR." As, already observed above, the order dated 7th June, 2006 under which Shri. Bhatia was appointed as one man inquiry committee nowhere refers to the allegation of corruption in the distribution of land. It merely refers to the grievance of the petitioner regarding alleged illegalities committed in the distribution of land under the said Act. It is not understood on what basis Shri. Bhatia could assume that the inquiry committee has been constituted in order to go into the allegation of corruption in the distribution of land. Undisputedly, Shri Bhatia is not a party to the proceedings in the petition. Further the paragraph 11 of the said application filed by Shri. Bhatia reads thus: - "In the present case the government is opposing the appointment of the Applicant as the enquiry officer because it fears the exposure of its corruption. If there have been illegal land allotment to influential persons, the government and its ministers and officials are accountable. The government is an interested party with a vested interest and therefore should not be permitted to discard an officer that it fears. There are numbers examples of pliant people appointed to committees by successive governments." Plain reading of the above paragraph reveals that Shri. Bhatia assumes that the inquiry would expose the corruption, and that the Government is an interested party with a vested interest, and that Shri. Bhatia would expose the alleged corruption by Government in the matter of allotment of land, and that therefore, the Government is interested in avoiding inquiry by Shri. Bhatia. Various averments in the application and affidavit filed by Shri. Bhatia clearly disclose predisposition in the mind of Shri. Bhatia about the matter in issue. Various averments in the application and affidavit filed by Shri. Bhatia clearly disclose predisposition in the mind of Shri. Bhatia about the matter in issue. The averments evidently disclose assumption that there is corruption involved in the allotment of land and that he would expose the same and that therefqre the Government is afraid of him of being allowed to inquire into the matter, even though Shri. Bhatia is not the authority to take a decision in the matter. As one man inquiry committee, he would be required to collect the materials to assist the Court in arriving at a correct decision in the matter. A person with predisposition that there is corruption involved in the allotment of land and the Government is culprit in that respect and with this predisposition if allowed to proceed to collect the evidence, certainly the Government would be justified in having apprehension that such a person is biased against the Government. In other words, even though the Government itself was not able to establish that Shri. Bhatia is biased against the Government, Shri. Bhatia himself has come forward to establish his bias against the Government in his affidavit. Certainly, his affidavit, as rightly submitted by the learned Advocate General, speaks more eloquently about his bias against the Government in the matter in hand and no further proof in that regard is required. Though, Shri. Bhatia would not be taking any final decision in the matter, yet in order to help the Court, it would be necessary to have the inquiry, impartial and unbiased, by an independent person having no bias against either of the parties, so that the materials collected in such investigation are placed before the Court which will assist the Court to arrive at just and proper decision in the matter. 33. As regards the grievance made on behalf of the petitioner that the application by the Government for modification of the order dated 7th June, 2006 was filed only after the change in assignment of the matters, as rightly submitted by the learned Advocate General, no such ground has been taken in reply to the application. Indeed, if the petitioner wanted to take such a ground, it was necessary for him to raise the same as the specific objection to the application so that the applicant could have submitted his explanation in that regard. Indeed, if the petitioner wanted to take such a ground, it was necessary for him to raise the same as the specific objection to the application so that the applicant could have submitted his explanation in that regard. Besides, it is to be noted that the Bench which passed the said order was functioning only upto the 16th June, 2006. 17th and 18th June, 2006 being the Saturday and Sunday, were not working days for judicial work and the constitution of Bench was changed from 19th June, 2006. Such change was required to be made on account of change in the head quarters of Shri. Justice J. N. Patel from Nagpur to Mumbai. In any case, one of the members of the said Bench even continued to be on this Bench (namely Shri. Justice S. R. Dongaonkar who was a party to the order dated 7th June, 2006). Being so, the contention in that regard sought to be raised by the petitioner is thoroughly unwarranted. 34. As regards the point about the absence of locus of the Government to object to the appointment of Shri. Bhatia, the said appointment having been done by the Court sui generis, it is to be noted that irrespective of the fact whether the appointment is sui generis or not, nothing prevents the parties from placing on record their apprehension that the adjudicating officer or any other officer directly or indirectly connected with the process of adjudication is having bias against such party. The process of adjudication is not merely the ultimate decision but it covers entire decision making process. It involves stages relating to collection of evidence to assist the Court to arrive at a correct finding on the point involved in the matter. Even the person entrusted with the responsibility of collecting necessary materials required for arriving at a correct and appropriate decision in the matter, happens to entertain bias against one of the parties, nothing would prevent such party from bringing the said fact or apprehension in that regard to the notice of the Court even in such cases where the appointment by the Court is made sui generis. Being so, merely because the appointment being sui generis, that would not debar the parties to the proceedings from expressing their views particularly when it relates to their apprehension about the bias against them entertained by the adjudication authority or any other person directly or indirectly involved in the adjudicating process. 35. In the facts and circumstances of the case, though the application filed by the Government is to be held as without any substance, at the same time, the affidavits filed by Shri. Bhatia do compel the Court to make rethinking about continuation of appointment of Shri. Bhatia as one man inquiry committee. 36. The contention of Shri. Bhatia that revocation of his appointment would humiliate him is without any substance. His appointment as one man committee was neither in the form of awarding any medal or bestowing great honour upon Shri. Bhatia, nor the revocation of the order of his appointment of the one man inquiry committee would result in disrobing him of any such award or honour. It was essentially to assist the Court in t collecting the materials to arrive at a correct t finding on the points to be determined in the petition. If the Court finds that a person appointed for conducting the inquiry, in the given set of facts may not be in a position to collect the evidence impartially or the bias entertained by such person against the Government may adversely influence the process of collection of evidence, certainly it would be in the fitness of case to rethink about the continuation of such officer in the committee and to take appropriate decision in that regard and if necessary to relieve him from the responsibility of collecting the evidence and continuing to be a member of the committee and that could not be claimed to be resulting in humiliation for such person and even if it results, that cannot be an obstruction for appropriate decision as may be required to be taken in the facts and circumstance of a case. 37. 37. As regards the contention that Shri. Bhatia is ready and willing to work as a member of the two men committee and in that case he would render his services free of costs, it is entirely for this Court to take a decision in that regard and it has been already decided by this Court under its order dated 7th June, 2006 that the inquiry should be conducted by one man committee and no cause is shown to make any rethinking about the said decision. One rather fails to understand the over enthusiasm or eagerness on the part of Shri. Bhatia somehow to continue to be the member of the inquiry committee, even free of costs. In any case, once the Court comes to the conclusion that the materials on record do disclose bias being entertained by Shri. Bhatia against the Government, the question of he being allowed to be a member of the committee does not arise. Rather, we would consider it necessary to appoint a retired High Court Judge to be one man inquiry committee. 38. In the result, for the reasons stated above, the applications filed by the State and Shri. Bhatia are dismissed but, at the same time, the order dated 7th June, 2006 passed in the above writ petition is modified as under: (i) The order appointing Shri. Arun Bhatia, IAS (retired) as One - man Enquiry Committee is recalled; Shri. Bhatia is relieved from the said assignment. (ii) In our opinion, it is appropriate to appoint a retired High Court Judge as one man committee to inquire into the matter in terms of the order dated 7th June, 2006 and hence, we do hereby appoint Shri. Justice R. K. Batta (retired) resident ofB - 45, Swasthya Vihar, Vikas Marg, New Delhi - 110 092, as Oneman Enquiry Committee in terms of the order dated 7th June, 2006. (iii) The Committee shall commence the inquiry within six weeks from the date of receipt of the communication of this order. (iii) The Committee shall commence the inquiry within six weeks from the date of receipt of the communication of this order. (iv) Apart from other directions, as directed under the order dated 7th June, 2006, the Committee shall be provided with the rent free furnished accommodation in Ravi Bhavan on similar basis as is made available to a sitting Judge of High Court, with attendants and also D. O. Car from the day on which the Member of the Committee arrives at Nagpur, till he leaves on completion of the work of the committee. (v) The Committee Member along with his spouse shall be entitled for to - and - fro air fare in Executive Class from his home town to Nagpur and for return journey on completion of the committee's work. (vi) The respondent Government shall pay to the Member of the Committee the honorarium of Rs.1,000/ - per working day from the date on which the Member of the Committee arrives at Nagpur till the date of his departure on completion of the committee's work excluding the days which are declared as National holidays, State holidays and Sundays. This amount of honorarium shall not be adjusted towards any amount received or receivable as pensionary benefits by the Member of One - man Enquiry Committee, and this honorarium shall be in addition to any such benefits received or receivable by the Member of One - man Enquiry Committee. (vii) The Honorarium shall be paid to the Member of the Committee at the end of every fortnight till the completion of committee's work. (viii)The Committee shall be provided with all the secretarial assistance including the Clerk and Peon as also, an EnglishMarathi - English Translator. (ix) The staff once made available, either for official work or at the residence to the Committee shall not be transferred till the work of the Committee is completed and without prior written consent of the Member of Committee. (x) No member of the staff shall be granted any kind of leave till the completion of Committee's work without prior consent of the Member of Committee, until and unless alternative arrangement is made. (xi) The Government shall provide initially a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ - (Rupees One Lakh) at the disposal of the Committee for its day to day official expenditure which shall be subject to the discretion and approval of the Committee. (xi) The Government shall provide initially a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ - (Rupees One Lakh) at the disposal of the Committee for its day to day official expenditure which shall be subject to the discretion and approval of the Committee. The Government shall also provide necessary stationary and furnished office accommodation for the Committee. The office accommodation shall include computer, printer, scanner, etc. (xii) All arrangement necessary for the Committee to function and for residence shall be made ready and available within four weeks from today. (xiii)Names and addresses of the staff members should be furnished to the Committee within five weeks, with copy thereof to be placed on the record of this file. (xiv) The Committee shall be also entitled for charge - free petrol to the extent of 200 litres per month. (xv) The Committee shall be at liberty to approach this Court for any further direction, if necessary and required. (xvi) The Registry to place this matter on board within five days from the receipt of the report by the Committee. (xvii) In case, any application is filed by the Committee, the same shall be placed before the Court immediately on the day following the day of receipt of such application. (xviii) Apart from the above modifications, the order dated 7th June, 2006 shall stand as it is, and enforceable. (xix) The respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall file compliance report regarding directions issued hereunder and under order dated 7th June, 2006 within five weeks from today. (xx) The Registry to communicate this order alongwith the copy of order dated 7th June, 2006 to Sri. Justice R. K. Bhatia (retired) at his residential address as well as at his present posting address at Vice Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, Camp: Hyderabad (A.P.) within fifteen days. (xxi) Copies of these orders should be sent also to the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, and to the Collector of Nagpur who should ensure prompt compliance of those orders. 39. Both the applications alongwith the pursis and affidavit are accordingly disposed of. Order accordingly.