ORDER K.L. Manjunath, J.— The prayer made in this application by respondent No. 1 in the appeal is that Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath rescue himself from the Bench hearing the appeal in the interest of justice and good conscience. 2. Before considering the said prayer, it is necessary to set out the factual matrix leading up to the filing of the said application. 3. For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status in the appeal. 4. This appeal is filed by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 17.4.2009 passed in O.S. No. 7924/2001 by the IX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The said suit was instituted by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 herein against defendant/appellants for a declaration that the Executive Committee of Bureau of the first appellant/Society had no bar or authority to remove the President or any Office Bearers of the respondent No. 1 and its temples or to exercise control over the possession of the property by the respondent No. 1 or administrative affairs of the respondent No. 1; declaration that plaintiff is the absolute owner of item No. 1 of 'A', 'B' and 'C' schedule properties as an independent legal entity and for permanent injunction to the 10th and 11th respondent to discharge and exercise the statutory and regulatory powers and duties vested in them. The said suit was decreed in part. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have preferred this appeal. 5. Misc. Cvl. No. 10216/2009 was filed by the appellants seeking early hearing of the appeal, in view of the direction given by the Apex Court in Contempt Petition (C)492/2004 in Civil Appeal No. 5657/2002 to the trial court to dispose of the suit by August 2008 on a day-today basis considering the subject matter of the suit. On 19.6.2009 when the appeal was posted for admission, the appeal was admitted and taking note of the submission on both sides, the appeal was posted for hearing on 29.6.2009. The case was listed on 29.6.2009 and on subsequent dates but was actually taken up on 2.7.2009 on which date it was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent that this appeal had to be taken up along with RFA. No. 421/2009. The case was listed on 29.6.2009 and on subsequent dates but was actually taken up on 2.7.2009 on which date it was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent that this appeal had to be taken up along with RFA. No. 421/2009. The said request was objected to by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and on merits, it was held that since the subject matter of the two appeals were different and the parties were also different. The request of the respondent No. 1 to club both the appeals was not accepted and hence the same was rejected. It was directed that the matter be listed on 7.7.2009 for further arguments. On that day the matter heard in part and thereafter adjourned to 10.7.2009. Between the said two dates the Judges hearing the appeal (Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath and Mr. Justice C.R. Kumaraswamy) received a courier, that is an envelope containing two photographs which were taken when Justice K.L. Manjunath had made a visit to Iskcon temple, Bangalore sometime in the year 2003. The photo was with regard to the presentation of a picture of Lord Krishna and below the photograph it was stated as under: 1. RFA 421/09 is pending before Justice K.L. Manjunath. 2. Parties in RFA 421/09 are Iskcon Mumbai v. Iskcon, Bangalore, 3. Above picture shows close association of Justice K.L. Manjunath and receiving gifts at the premises of Iskcon Bangalore. 4. Inspite of having close association starting from 2003 and continue of receiving gifts....: Justice K.L. Manjunath is still hearing the above RFA 421/09, for reasons best known to....? 5. Morally and ethically is it right? 6. As a honest Judge and to continue with the high reputation of Justice K.L. Manjunath, is he right in hearing of this matter at all? Your well wisher C.C.: 1. The Honourable Chief Justice of India and all his other companion Judges. 2. Honourable Chief Justice of Karnataka. 3. Honourable Justice Kumaraswamy, High Court of Karnataka. 4. Fourth Estate. 6. On 10.7.2009 the following order was passed: The Matter was heard in part. After the case was adjourned, we have received a cover which contains two photographs said to have been sent by Jayapataka Swami Sisya Samuha. These photographs were taken when on of us Justice K.L. Manjunath had given a visit to Iskcon Temple, Bangalore somewhere in the year 2003. After the case was adjourned, we have received a cover which contains two photographs said to have been sent by Jayapataka Swami Sisya Samuha. These photographs were taken when on of us Justice K.L. Manjunath had given a visit to Iskcon Temple, Bangalore somewhere in the year 2003. The photo contains a presentation of a picture of deity. Below the photograph it is stated as hereunder: 1. RFA 421/09 is pending before Justice K.L. Manjunath. 2. Parties in RFA 421/09 are Iskcon Mumbai v. Iskcon, Bangalore, 3. Above picture shows close association of Justice K.L. Manjunath and receiving gifts at the premises of Iskcon Bangalore. 4. Inspite of having close association starting from 2003 and continue of receiving gifts.,: Justice K.L. Manjunath is still hearing the above RFA 421/09, for reasons best known to....? 5. Morally and ethically is it right? 6. As a honest Judge and to continue with the high reputation of Justice K.L. Manjunath, is he right in hearing of this matter at all? Your well wisher C.C.: 1. The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and all his other companion Judges. 5. Honourable Chief Justice of Karnataka. 6. Honourable Justice Kumaraswamy, High Court of Karnataka. 7. Fourth Estate. These Photographs were shown to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant Sri. Udaya Holla and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathy. Sri. Udaya Holla submits that his client has not dispatched the cover and there was no occasion to get the photo wherein Justice K.L. Manjunath receiving a photo of deity from Iskcon, Bangalore since the dispute between Iskcon, Mumbai and Iskcon, Bangalore was there much earlier to Justice K.L. Manjunath visiting the temple. He further submitted that he and his client have got full faith in this Court and the same has been dispatched by the respondent (ISKCON, Bangalore) to bring bad name to the appellant and also to scandalize the judiciary and requests the court to hold an enquiry. Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathy, learned senior counsel for the respondent also submitted that he and his clients have full confidence in the court and that his clients are not responsible for sending the cover with photographs. Sri. S.A. Maruthi Prasad, Advocate who is assisting Mr. S.K.V. Chalapathy in the matter on behalf of the respondent is present in the Court Hall. Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathy, learned senior counsel for the respondent also submitted that he and his clients have full confidence in the court and that his clients are not responsible for sending the cover with photographs. Sri. S.A. Maruthi Prasad, Advocate who is assisting Mr. S.K.V. Chalapathy in the matter on behalf of the respondent is present in the Court Hall. According to Justice K.L. Manjunath, Iskcon, Bangalore invited him through S.A.Maruthi Prasad and even the other Hon'ble Judges of this Court were invited by Iskcon, Bangalore through Sri. S.A. Maruthi Prasad and he had taken most of the Judges to Iskcon, Bangalore. He was also working under Justice K.L. Manjunath as a junior lawyer when Justice K.L. Manjunath was practicing as a lawyer. In order to ascertain the actual facts, we Interrogated Sri. S.A. Maruthi Prasad in the presence of both the learned senior counsel appearing for the parties. Sri. S.A. Maruthi Prasad admitted that prior to 2003 in all on three occasions Justice K.L. Manjunath on his invitation has visited the temple and he further admitted that he alone was taking all the Judges to Iskcon, Bangalore on festival days. On looking into the photographs he admitted that what was given as a gift in the photo is only an ordinary picture of Lord Krishna with a wooden frame in a presentation cover and no valuable gift has been given to Justice K.L. Manjunath by Iskcon. Bangalore. He also admitted that whenever Judges have visited Iskcon, Bangalore, photographs have been taken and all those photographs are with the Iskcon, Bangalore. Considering the contents in the cover with the photographs, we are of the opinion that it is a black-mail tactics adopted by the persons who are involved to avoid this Bench and to scandalize Justice K.L. Manjunath and bring down the reputation of this Court. We are also of the opinion that what has happened to Justice K.L. Manjunath in this appeal shall not happen to other Brothers/Sisters Judges who have visited the temple as devotees. When the photograph is taken by Iskcon, Bangalore in 2003, it is for them to explain how this could be sent in the name of opposite party. Therefore, both the parties are directed to file the affidavits giving explanation. Office is directed to keep the cover and the photo in safe custody. Call this matter on 17.7.2009. When the photograph is taken by Iskcon, Bangalore in 2003, it is for them to explain how this could be sent in the name of opposite party. Therefore, both the parties are directed to file the affidavits giving explanation. Office is directed to keep the cover and the photo in safe custody. Call this matter on 17.7.2009. Thereafter, the matter was posted on 17.7.2009. On the said date the following order was made by the court: The appellant and the respondent have filed their affidavits. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent Mr. Mathai M. Paikeday requests the Court to grant a week's time to file an additional affidavit looking into the order-sheet of this Court dated 10.7.2009 and that the respondent is yet to obtain the certified copy of the order dated 10.7.2009. In the circumstances, time is granted. Matter is adjourned to 31.7.2009. The case was posted to 31.7.2009. On that day at the request of the counsel for respondent No. 1 the matter was adjourned to the following week and it was listed on 7.8.2009, on which date the following orders were made: This matter was heard in-part on 2.7.2009. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 7.7.2009. Subsequently the matter was listed before this Court on 10.7.2009. After the case was adjourned, on 2.7.2009 a cover was sent to both of us. The details of which is narrated by us in our order sheet dt. 10.7.2009 and that day Sri. S.A. Maruthi Prasad, a Member of the Bar clarified the circumstances under which photo was taken in Iskcon and the nature of Gift (which is a photo of Lord Krishna) said to have been given to Justice. K.L. Manjunath by Iskcon. Thereafter, we directed both the parties to file the affidavits giving the explanation and the matter was adjourned to 17.7.2009. Again the mattes was adjourned, from 17.7,2009 at the request of the respondent's counsel to 31.7.2009. In the meanwhile, two letters are addressed to Justice K.L. Manjunath, one by Sri. Shekhar Shetty, Advocate dt.24.7.2009 stating that Sri. V. Ramesh Babu, colleague of Sri. Again the mattes was adjourned, from 17.7,2009 at the request of the respondent's counsel to 31.7.2009. In the meanwhile, two letters are addressed to Justice K.L. Manjunath, one by Sri. Shekhar Shetty, Advocate dt.24.7.2009 stating that Sri. V. Ramesh Babu, colleague of Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathy had approached him to appear for one of the parties in RFA No. 421/2009 pertaining to Iskcon which is pending before this Court and that he refused to appear in this case since the matter was pending before Justice K.L. Manjunath and the letter further reads that even after the parties were directed in this case to file affidavit, he had approached and requested him to file Vakalath. Similarly, another letter is received by Justice K.L. Manjunath from Sri. S.V. Srinivasan, Advocate which discloses that Sri. S.A. Maruthi Prasad working as a colleague with Justice K.L. Manjunath and S.V. Srinivasan had approached Srinivasan requesting him to appear for Iskcon in the appeal pending before this Court and that he declined to appear for the party as requested by Sri. S.A. Maruthi Prasad, Though these two letters were received by Justice K.L. Manjunath, on the last date of hearing on 31.7.2009 to avoid any unpleasantness these two letters were shown to Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathy and these two letters were also shown to Sri. Udaya Holla. On perusal of these two letters, Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathy requested us not to disclose the contents of this letters. Accordingly, on his request the matter was adjourned to this day. Today Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathy in the presence of Sri. Ramesh Babu submits that these two Advocates are denying for having approached the two Advocates who have addressed letters to Justice K.L. Manjunath. It may be noted at this stage that Justice K.L. Manjunath had worked as a junior of Sri. Shekhar Shetty from 15th September 1974 to 10th February 1977 and from 11.2.2007 till his elevation Sri. S.V. Srinivasan was practicing with him and that Sri. Maruthi Prasad was a junior colleague of Justice Manjunath and Sri. S.V. Srinivasan. In the light of the submissions of Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathy it is for Sri. Ramesh Babu and Sri. Maruthi Prasad to file their affidavit. List this matter on 11.8.2009 at 4.30 p.m. Per C.R. Kumaraswamy, J Heard the dictation of my brother, His Lordship Sri. K.L. Manjunath. Maruthi Prasad was a junior colleague of Justice Manjunath and Sri. S.V. Srinivasan. In the light of the submissions of Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathy it is for Sri. Ramesh Babu and Sri. Maruthi Prasad to file their affidavit. List this matter on 11.8.2009 at 4.30 p.m. Per C.R. Kumaraswamy, J Heard the dictation of my brother, His Lordship Sri. K.L. Manjunath. If a Judge is defamed in such a way as not to affect the administration of justice he has the ordinary remedies for defamation. It is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Therefore in this background, post this matter before a Bench of which Justice C.R. Kumaraswamy is not a Member after obtaining necessary orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice. In the circumstances, place this matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for necessary orders. The matter was posted to 11.8.2009. On that day at the request of the counsel for respondent No. 1, the matter was adjourned to 18.8.2009. In the meanwhile, in view of the orders dated 7.8.2009 the matter was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice and on 13.8.2009 it was directed that the matter be heard by a Bench headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath. That is how the matter is posted before this Bench. 7. In the above background and particularly the orders made by this Court during this period, Misc. Cvl. application has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 on 3.8.2009 to which statement of objections have been filed. Before considering the said application on merits, it is necessary to mention about the affidavits filed on behalf of the appellant and respondent No. 1 pursuant to the directions of this Court. 8. On 16.7.2009 the appellant filed its affidavit stating that it has the fullest trust and confidence in the Judges hearing the appeal and that it had absolutely no objection for the appeal continued to be heard by the same Bench. On 17.7.2009 respondent No. 1 filed its affidavit adverting to the newspaper reports dated 11.7.2009 with regard to the proceedings held on 10.7.2009 averring that if the statements made in the newspaper reports is correct, attributed to have been made by Mr. On 17.7.2009 respondent No. 1 filed its affidavit adverting to the newspaper reports dated 11.7.2009 with regard to the proceedings held on 10.7.2009 averring that if the statements made in the newspaper reports is correct, attributed to have been made by Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath would demonstrate his prejudice against the first respondent, as the statements had seriously and immensely tarnished the image of the first respondent/institution. The said affidavit includes certain documents including newspaper reports of the proceedings held on 10.7.2009. Further, affidavit was filed by the appellants on 30.7.2009 including certain documents, in response to which additional affidavit and rejoinder to the affidavit dated 30.7.2009 was filed by the appellant No. 1 including certain documents. In the mean while, the application under consideration dated 3.8.2009 was filed, to which objections have been filed by the appellant on 7.8.2009 to which rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 1 on 18.8.2009. 9. In the said application dated 3.8.2009, while narrating about the order dated 10.7.2009 and as to what transpired in the court on that day, by referring to para 9 of the affidavit dated 17.7.2009 it is stated that it is the practice of the first respondent to take photographs of important festivals and visits by dignitaries to the temple and those photographs are displayed freely in albums kept in the reception and other waiting rooms and also displayed on notice board in the first respondent temple accessible to anyone. There is no prohibition with regard to taking photographs by devotees and members of the general public who are present on those occasions except in the sanctum sanctorum in all other places photograph is not prohibited. Referring to the theft of important materials from the possession of the first respondent with reference to the affidavit is also made, the further averments at para 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are as follows: 6. However, on reading the Order dated 10.07.2009, any reasonable man can conclude that the photographs enclosed are (only) from the possession of Iskcon Bangalore and that Iskcon Bangalore is resorting to blackmailing and scandalizing His Lordship Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath and the envelope was sent by Iskcon Bangalore in the name of the opposite party. 7. However, on reading the Order dated 10.07.2009, any reasonable man can conclude that the photographs enclosed are (only) from the possession of Iskcon Bangalore and that Iskcon Bangalore is resorting to blackmailing and scandalizing His Lordship Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath and the envelope was sent by Iskcon Bangalore in the name of the opposite party. 7. It may be recalled at this juncture, that in Paragraph 24 of my affidavit dated July 17, 2009, I have extracted reports appearing in the newspaper Deccan Herald on 11th July, 2009. The reports appeared in 'Deccan Herald' dated July 11, 2009 quoted Justice Manjunath as extracted below: He said he used to visit the Temple as a devotee until 2003 and stopped thereafter due to several doubts. "This should not happen to the innocent devotees visiting temples", he said. Similar reports have appeared in Prajavani, Indian Express, Times of India, DNA City, The Hinju, Kannada Prabha, Samyuktha Karnataka etc. Copies of the news items published in the aforesaid news papers were produced, collectively marked as Annexure H along with my Affidavit dated July 17, 2009. 8. It is most respectfully submitted, that any right-minded person who reads the aforesaid News Paper reports will reach a conclusion that Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath is biased against Iskcon Bangalore, entertaining serious doubts and opinion against Iskcon Bangalore. That the learned Judge is having a belief that Iskcon Bangalore are 'Blackmailers' who adopt scurrilous methods for 'avoiding the bench' and that devotees should be beware of them. Obliviously the sanctity of the temple is put at stake. 9. It may be submitted, that the Appeal R.F.A. No. 421/2009, came up for Admission on June 19, 2009 before a Bench presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath and strangely, the Appellants have moved at the time of admission itself, an application for early hearing of the R.F.A. It is submitted that Counsel for this Respondent did not oppose the early hearing of the Appeal, and the matter came to be listed for hearing immediately, on June 29, 2009 and infact, the counsel for Respondent No. 1 waited for three full days prior to 02.07.2009 from morning till rising of the court for the matter to reach and the hearing actually commenced on July 2, 2009 at about 4.00 p.m. and thereafter the regular Bench for hearing RFAs changed. I also state that on 10/07/2009, when the anonymous letter was shown to our counsel, he instantaneously submitted that the same be ignored and request this Hon'ble Court to proceed with hearing of the Appeal. These facts are narrated for the purpose of showing the bona fides of the 1st Respondent and to expose the Appellant's unfounded allegation of 'bench-hunting'. 10. Thus on the facts and circumstances, the 1st Respondent is having reasonable apprehension that Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath is biased against this Respondent. It is my humble submission that since the learned Judge is pre-disposed and having prejudices as stated above, he is unable to act as a Judge in this Case. Thus the two aspects being the basis for having an apprehension of bias against Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath are, the contents of the order dated 10.7.2009 and the newspaper reports of 11.7.2009. 10. In response to the said application a counter affidavit has been filed by the first appellant stating that the sole intention of filing the said application is to protract the proceedings. The same lacks bonafides that it is an instance of contempt of this Court as any litigant cannot choose and judge and any such attempt must be crushed with a heavy hand. That initially an attempt was made to connect this appeal with another appeal and the said request was rejected and with the consent of both sides when the matter was to be heard a courier which bore the address of the branch of the first appellant situated at Bangalore is stated to have been sent by the disciples of the 4th appellant. Thereafter an affidavit has been filed on 17.7.2009 in an attempt that the matter is not heard and thereafter the application has been filed with the specific prayer. It is further averred that there is a clear admission that the first respondent had taken the photographs of the Hon'ble Judge when he had visited the temple. That a reading of the order dated 10.7.2009 cannot lead to an inference of bias on the part of the judge. That the order dated 10.7.2009 was dictated in the presence of the deponent of the said application and his counsel; that sustenance cannot be drawn from the newspaper reports to contend that the Presiding Judge is biased in the matter against respondent No. 1. That the order dated 10.7.2009 was dictated in the presence of the deponent of the said application and his counsel; that sustenance cannot be drawn from the newspaper reports to contend that the Presiding Judge is biased in the matter against respondent No. 1. That in view of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 29.4.2008 which was brought to the notice of the court, it was agreed between the parties that the matter would be heard at the stage of admission itself on account of the urgency and by consent it was posted to 29.6.2009. The matter was taken up at 3.20p.m on 2.7.2009 and it was heard till the end of the day. That the allegations of bias made against the judge are false, scandalous and contemptuous and the prayer sought by respondent No. 1 is wholly untenable. If such prayers are allowed, then it would encourage the litigants in acts of bench hunting and forum shopping and the courts would be flooded with such applications. Therefore, the appellant No. 1 sought for dismissal of the said application. 11. In response, on 17.8.2009 rejoinder has been filed by the respondent stating that after the application dated 3.8.2009 was filed by respondent No. 1, Mr. Justice C.R. Kumaraswamy withdrew from the Bench by his order dated 7.8.2009. The order dated 10.7.2009 is opposed to the principles of natural justice and that there is absolutely no urgency for hearing the appeal. On the said date the matter was taken up at about 4.00p.m and was heard for about 30 minutes only; that the filing of application for recusal does not amount to contempt of court; that the two letters purported to have been sent in the name of two advocates, namely Sri. Shekhar Shetty and Sri. S.V. Srinivasan in a bid to avoid Justice K.L. Manjunath from hearing the appeal is probably on account of the involvement of the appellant who had earlier approached the counsel for first respondent, namely Sri. Maruti Prasad by writing a letter and including the Demand Draft requesting him to switch over his loyalty from Iskcon Bangalore to Iskcon Mumbai; that Sri. Ramesh Babu & Sri. Maruti Prasad, Advocates against whom the allegations have been made in the said two letters have denied their involvement, and therefore, re-iterated the averments & prayer made in the application. 12. Ramesh Babu & Sri. Maruti Prasad, Advocates against whom the allegations have been made in the said two letters have denied their involvement, and therefore, re-iterated the averments & prayer made in the application. 12. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Mathai M. Pai Keday for the applicant/respondent No. 1 and learned Senior Counsel, Sri. Udaya Holla for the respondent/appellant No. 1. 13. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that though the applicant has not furnished proof of bias nevertheless the application is based on what transpired in the court and also on the newspaper reports. While narrating the facts, he drew our attention to the order dated 10.7.2009 and particularly the following portion of the said order and particularly to the last paragraph of page 5 of the said order namely the words "blackmail tactics adopted by the persons who are involved to avoid this Bench" and to the words "when the photograph is taken by Iskcon, Bangalore in 2003, it is for them to explain how this could be sent in the name of opposite party" which are the court's conclusion of the probabilities. That the newspaper reports and particularly the quotations in the said report, namely "he used to visit the temple as devotee until 2003 and stopped thereafter".... "this should not happen to the other brother/sister Judges who are visiting temples" are the two aspects which give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, therefore, according to him the prayer made in the application ought to be accepted. Making a reference to the order of Mr. Justice C.R. Kurnaraswamy, dated 7.8.2009 he stated that it is an order of dissent. He has also submitted that till date no notice has been sent to the court to the sender of the courier. He has relied upon certain decision of the Apex Court which shall be adverted to. 14, Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent, in the application while adverting to the two aspects being the basis of bias drew our attention to the fact that the order dated 10.7.2009 directed both the parties to file affidavits giving explanation and therefore, there was no conclusion in the matter and neither was it a case of pre-judging the issue. He has also stated that the deponent and his counsel who filed the application were present in court and there was no bias perceived during the course of the proceedings. But on the other hand, the order dated 10.7.2009 is being read and highlighted out of context; that based on the newspaper reports, the applicant cannot entertain an apprehension of bias against the concerned judge; that by order dated 7.8.2009 his Lordship Justice C.R. Kumaraswamy decided not to hear the matter which is his personal decision. Thereafter the matter was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice who by his order dated 13.8.2009 has once again placed the matter before the Bench headed by Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath. The prayer made in the application amounts to gross contempt of court, since nothing is said about what transpired in the court by the deponent, but what is quoted in the press has become a subject matter of bias and further the contents of the order dated 10.7.2009 is considered to be an instance of bias. That the contents of the said order can by no stretch of imagination held to be an instance of bias against applicant/respondent No. 1 since a direction was issued to both the parties to file affidavits with regard to the courier sent to the Judges. The entire attempt of the applicant has been to somehow ensure that Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath does not hear the matter and such practices have to be curbed with a heavy hand, keeping in mind the dignity of the institution. 15. Referring to the affidavits filed, he submitted that in the first instance, the applicant did not speak about the photograph in question being stolen. But it has been stated so only in the rejoinder affidavit. The wavering stand of the applicant shows the total lack of bonafides, that the applicant had earlier filed a similar suit before the Bombay High Court which was dismissed and therefore, the applicant has been consistently indulging in Forum Shopping and Bench hunting tactics. He has also stated that it is the prerogative of the Hon'ble Chief Justice to allocate the work. He has also referred to certain decision of the Apex Court which shall be adverted to. 16. He has also stated that it is the prerogative of the Hon'ble Chief Justice to allocate the work. He has also referred to certain decision of the Apex Court which shall be adverted to. 16. In reply learned Senior Counsel for the applicant stated that it is not just the newspaper reports which is the basis of the application, but the affidavits also have to be taken into consideration. Adverting to Annexure-1 dated 30.7.2009 it is stated that at an earlier point of time the head of the institution of Bangalore Iskcon was the Chairman of Jaya Pataka Swamy Shishya Samuha but not presently. He further submitted that the reference made to the prerogative of the Chief Justice of the High Court to allocate work has no relevance in the matter. 17. Having heard the counsel on both sides and on perusal of the material on record, the following points arise for our consideration: 1. Whether the prayer made in the application ought to be accepted? 2. If the answer to point No. 1 is in the negative, whether the filing of such an application amounts to prima facie contempt of this Court. 18. We have set out in detail the contents of the application and the statement of objections as well as the orders made on various states. From the material on record, it is apparent that the applicant has raised the plea of real likelihood of bias on two aspects^ namely the order dated 10.7.2009 and the newspaper reports. However, in the reply argument, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant stated that even the contents of the affidavits have to be taken into consideration and we shall presently refer to the affidavits. 19. Pursuant to the order dated 10.7.2009 both sides have filed affidavits. On 16.7.2009 the appellant has filed its affidavit stating that with regard to the courier sent to the Judges which bore the address of the branch of the first appellant situated at Seshadripuram, Bangalore, extensive enquiries were made and that neither the 4th appellant nor any of his disciples had said the communication. It is stated that the appellants have the fullest trust and confidence in the Hon'ble Judges hearing the appeal. 20. It is stated that the appellants have the fullest trust and confidence in the Hon'ble Judges hearing the appeal. 20. In the affidavit filed by the applicant/first respondent, the proceedings of 10.7.2009 have been referred to and on account of the Certified Copy of the order dated 10.7.2009 not being yet available, liberty was sought to file a detailed affidavit. It is also averred that a similar cover with photos that had been sent to the Judges was also received on 9.7.2009 by the first respondent, which was noticed by the deponent on 10.7.2009. The receipt of the similar cover was brought to the notice of their counsel; that the addressee of the said courier is the 4th defendant in the original suit from which the appeal arises. However, at para 9 & 10 of the affidavit it is stated as follows: 9. I submit that the Hon'ble Justice K.L. Manjunath used to visit the 1st Respondent temple between 1998 and 2003 as a devotee of the temple. The 1st Respondent used to invite Hon'ble Justice K.L. Manjunath for various major festivals conducted in the temple, as has been done with other devotees of the temple. It is the custom and practice of the 1st Respondent to take photographs of the important festivals in the temple and the photographs taken on such occasions are displayed freely in Albums kept in the reception areas and other waiting rooms and are also displayed on notice board in the 1st Respondent temple. On one such occasion, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath was invited specifically for a puja on one of the festival days along with other respectable persons like our donors, sponsors, etc. On that day Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.R. Manjunath participated in the puja and after the puja, as is the custom, he was invited to accept one of the souvenirs, a photo frame of the temple deity, and prasadam. Souvenirs of the temple were given to all the invitees and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.R. Manjunath was one among them. 10. I submit that ever since filing of the suit and prior to the filing of the suit, the Appellant has been indulging in taking clandestinely the various important and valuable documents of the 1st Respondent, in collusion with the employees of the 1st Respondent. It is pertinent to not that there are nearly 1000 employees employed by the 1st respondent. I submit that ever since filing of the suit and prior to the filing of the suit, the Appellant has been indulging in taking clandestinely the various important and valuable documents of the 1st Respondent, in collusion with the employees of the 1st Respondent. It is pertinent to not that there are nearly 1000 employees employed by the 1st respondent. The appellant is also continuously attempting to disrupt day-to-day activities of the 1st Respondent on one pretext or the other. I submit that the Appellant, as is their usual practice, which I shall hereinafter detail, may be probably responsible for dispatching the above cover and the 1st Respondent is nowhere involved in sending such cover and is fully innocent. Some of the antecedents of the Appellant are narrated below to demonstrate hat it could be the act of the Appellant in sending the above envelop. 21. While referring to the incidents of theft of documents, it is submitted that the appellant has the ability to obtain material and information of the first respondent by dubious means and using the same to prejudice the interest of the first respondent. That the appellant has also been targeting the persons who are present by making false allegations so as to create prejudice against respondent No. 1 and bring disrepute to respondent No. 1. Further, Para 23, 24 and 25 of the affidavit read as follows: 23. I submit that these glaring instances evidenced by un-impeachable documents clearly establishes the fact that it is not the 1st Respondent but the Appellant who has most probably indulged in sending the said envelop with photos thus attempting to scandalize and bring dis-repute to the judiciary as well as to the 1st Respondent. This is a clear case of abuse of process of the Court and contempt of court. 24. The details of the incident that took place in Court on 10-7-2009 are reported in various newspapers. The reports appearing in Deccan Herald and Prajavani issues of the newspapers dated 11-7-2009 are extracted as follows: "He said he used to visit the temple as a devotee until 2003 and stopped thereafter due to several doubts. This should not happen to the innocent devotees visiting temples. The reports appearing in Deccan Herald and Prajavani issues of the newspapers dated 11-7-2009 are extracted as follows: "He said he used to visit the temple as a devotee until 2003 and stopped thereafter due to several doubts. This should not happen to the innocent devotees visiting temples. "Similar reports have appeared in the Prajavani, Indian Express, Times of India, DNA City, The Hindu, Kannada Prabha, Samyauktha Kamataka etc., Copies of the article published in the aforesaid newspapers are collectively produced herewith as Annexure-H series. 25. I submit that the said statement, if correct, attributed to have been made by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.R. Manjunath demonstrates, if I may say so, prejudice against the 1st Respondent. The said statement has seriously and immensely tarnished the reputation and prestige of the 1st respondent institution. The 1st respondent has received hundreds of phone calls from its devotees from various parts of the country regarding the said statement. I do solemnly swear that this is my name and signature and the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 22. In response, another affidavit dated 30.7.2009 was filed by the first appellant so as to controvert the allegations made in the affidavit of respondent No. 1 filed on 17.7.2009. While stating that the contents of the affidavit dated 17.7.2009 amounted to contempt of this Court and by stating that the photographs in question were sent to the Judges by the persons who are in possession of the said photographs namely Sri. Madhu Pandit Das, at para 5, 6, 7 & 8 it is stated as follows: 5. The motive behind sending the cover and the photographs is to ensure that the bench which heard RFA, as well as, this Hon'ble court does not here the RFA. On the said cover, the address of the person, who sent it is shown as address of the second Bangalore branch of the 1st Appellant and in the affidavit dt. 17.07.2009, filed on behalf of the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff, it is falsely contended that the said cover and the is falsely contended that the said cover and the photographs were sent by the 1st Appellant. In fact the cover was an attempt on the part of the persons who represent the 1st Respondent to ensure that the RFA is not heard. 17.07.2009, filed on behalf of the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff, it is falsely contended that the said cover and the is falsely contended that the said cover and the photographs were sent by the 1st Appellant. In fact the cover was an attempt on the part of the persons who represent the 1st Respondent to ensure that the RFA is not heard. This is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the contents of the affidavit dt. 17.07.2009 filed on behalf of the 18' Respondent by Mr. Jai Chaitanya Das specially last paragraphs and also by the statements made by the senior counsel on 17.07.2009 wherein the senior counsel for the 1st Respondent said that the bench should rescue itself. The conduct of the persons claiming to represent the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff is atrocious and deserves to be condemned in no uncertain terms. There is a concerted attempt to ensure that the RFA is not heard and totally false, unscrupulous & reckless allegations have been made against the Judges. If this kind of conduct is permitted or tolerated, it would result in the collapse of the rule of Law. It is not out of place to mention that the Mr. Madhu Pandit Das and his henchmen have fabricated numerous documents and have filed the same as exhibits on behalf of the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff in the trial court in support of their false & fraudulent claim/suit. 6. In the affidavit dated 17.07.2009, Mr. Jai Chaitanya Das, has filed some newspaper cutting, which wrongly reported the proceedings dt. 10.07.2009 of this RFA, and has sought to draw false conclusion of bias against the Judges, which is required to be deprecated in no uncertain terms. 7. During the hearing of the RFA on 10.07.2009, Mr. Jai Chaitanya Das was personally present in the court along with his counsel Sri S.A. Maruti Prasad and senior counsel Sri SKV Chalapati who participated in the said proceedings. All of them personally witnessed the full and complete proceedings which were conducted in the open court. Yet in the Para 24-25 of the said affidavit, Mr. Jai Chaitanya Das, relying on some incorrect versions of the proceedings of this Hon'ble Court on 10th July, 2009, given in some newspaper reports, accused one of the Hon'ble judge of this Court of having prejudice against the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff and also accused him of tarnishing the reputation of the Plaintiff. Jai Chaitanya Das, relying on some incorrect versions of the proceedings of this Hon'ble Court on 10th July, 2009, given in some newspaper reports, accused one of the Hon'ble judge of this Court of having prejudice against the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff and also accused him of tarnishing the reputation of the Plaintiff. This is highly immoral unethical and contemptuous to say the least. 8. It may also be not out of place to state 12 that on 17th July, 2009, a hew senior Counsel was engaged on behalf of the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff only to make submission that the present Bench should not continue to hear this RFA. In our estimation this certainly establishes that the said communication to the Hon'ble Judges was sent by Madhu Pandit pas, Jai Chaitanya Das and others who are now claiming to represent the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff. 23. There are other averments with regard to the denial of the theft of the photograph and also about the receipt of a cover by the deponent of the affidavit dated 17.7.2009 and also the fact that initially the suit was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 herein on the original side of the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on the ground that respondent No. 17 and 18 in the said case in Civil Application No. 228/2003 had indulged in forum shopping which was the abuse of the process of the court and the court refrain from making any further observations in the said matter. 24. On 17.8.2009 respondent No. 1 filed additional affidavit and rejoinder to the affidavit dated 30.7.2009 filed by the appellant No. 1. In the said affidavit while re-iterating the contents of the earlier affidavit dated 17.7.2009 and after receipt of certified copy of the order dated 10.7.2009, para 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 17. 19, 20, 27, 31 and 33 read as follows: 4. I submit that, it is stated in the order dt 10.07.2009 passed by this Hon'ble Court, that Sri S.A. Maruthi Prasad, advocate, who was appearing for the Respondent No. 1 in the trial court, when interrogated by this Hon'ble Court, admitted, that he was taking all the judges to Iskcon Bangalore and during those visit, photographs were being taken by Iskcon Bangalore. In this regard, I most humbly and respectfully submit that, the Respondent No. 1, through Maruthi Prasad, Advocate had sent invitation to only two Hon'ble judges of this Court, namely Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chandrashekaraiah, a former judge of this Court. I submit that apart from the above two Hon'ble Judges, no invitation was sent through Sri Maruthi Prasad, inviting the other Hon'ble Judges to Iskcon Bangalore. 5. I submit that on one such occasion, Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.R. Manjunath was invited specifically for a puja on one of the festival days along with other respectable persons like our donors, sponsors, etc. On that day Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.R. Manjunath participated in the puja and after the puja, as is the custom, he was invited to accept one of the souvenirs, a photo frame of the temple deity, and prasadam. Souvenirs of the temple were given to all the invitees and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.R. Manjunath was one among them. At the time when the photo frame was presented, various other members of the public were also present including devotees in large numbers and the members of the public including devotees have taken photographs of the said presentation made. It is pertinent to state here that except for the sanctum sanctorum of the temple where the main deity is situated, in all other places and especially during festivals, photography is freely permitted. It is significant to state here that the Appellants with a malafide intention influenced and allured, over a period of last nine years, the missionary devotees in about 20 in number to switch over their loyalties from Iskcon Bangalore to Iskcon Mumbai and who are now actively associated with the Appellants. It is submitted that such devotees who have defected to Iskcon Mumbai, may have given the photographs taken by them on that occasion to the Appellants, who may have dispatched the same to this Hon'ble Court in order to prejudice the case of the 1st Respondent. Further it may be stated here that there are so many methods and opportunities, by which the said photographs in question could have been stolen by the Appellants from the Albums kept by the 1st Respondent at the waiting areas. Further it may be stated here that there are so many methods and opportunities, by which the said photographs in question could have been stolen by the Appellants from the Albums kept by the 1st Respondent at the waiting areas. The respondent No. 1 has made a search of the photographs available with it and the said two photographs shown by the Hon'ble judge in open court on 10.07.2009 are not available with the 1st respondent. It is further submitted that the matter being very serious, a proper and through enquiry may be held. 6. I most humbly and respectfully submit that pursuant to the hearing hat took place in Court on 10-7-2009, news reports appeared in various newspapers on 11.07.2009. The reports appearing in Deccan Herald dated 11-7-2009 are extracted in para 24 of the affidavit dt 17.07.2009, which indicates serious prejudice and bias on art of this Hon'ble Court against the 1st respondent. Hence, I reasonably apprehend that the 1st respondent may not get justice at the hands of this Hon'ble Court and hence it may not be desirable for this Hon'ble Court to hear this matter further and accordingly an application is filed praying that Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath may be pleased to recuse himself from the bench hearing R.F.A. No. 421/2009 for the ends of Justice and good conscience. x x x x x 12. Re Para 6 & 7: The averments made in para 6, that I have filed some newspaper cutting, which wrongly reported the proceedings dt. 10.07.2009 and has sought to draw false conclusion of bias against the judges are false and the same are not admitted. It is significant to state here the admitted fact on record, that on 10.7.2009, when the Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath passed over the cover with photographs to Sri S.K.V. Chalapathy, the Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent, the instant reaction of Sri S.K.V. Chalapathy, the Senior Advocate was, that he requested the court to ignore the said cover and photographs and to proceed with further hearing of the appeal. This instant reaction on the part of the Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent clearly indicates the full confidence, trust and faith, the 1st Respondent had for the Hon'ble court. The apprehension of the 1st Respondent that the Hon'ble Mr. This instant reaction on the part of the Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent clearly indicates the full confidence, trust and faith, the 1st Respondent had for the Hon'ble court. The apprehension of the 1st Respondent that the Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath is having bias and prejudice against the 1st Respondent has started only on the reading of the newspaper on 11.7.2009, wherein the said newspaper i.e. Deccan Herald and Prajavani have attributed the statement published by them to the judge, that the Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath was visiting Iskcon temple of the 1st Respondent till 2003 and that his Lordship stopped visiting the temple because of doubts. The starting point of apprehension on the part of the 1st Respondent, that the Hon'ble court is biased and prejudiced against the 1st Respondent is due to the said statement attributed to the judge, which appeared in the newspapers on 11.07.2009. However on reading the Order dated 10.7.2009, a copy, of which was received by the 1st Respondent on 22.7.2009, which order also very clearly indicates that the Hon'ble Court without holding any enquiry and without giving proper opportunity to the 1st Respondent, has obviously come to the conclusion, that it is the 1st Respondent who has sent the said letter and photographs in the name of the opposite party. 13. It may be further clarified at this stage itself, that the 1st Respondent having expressed full confidence in the court on 10.7.2009, cannot be attributed with the act of sending the said letter and the photographs. If the 1st respondent or somebody on their behalf had sent the photographs and letter, the 1st Respondent through their Senior Advocate would have not instantly expressed and reached reposing full faith and confidence in the Court. The very fact that the Senior Counsel for the 1st Respondent had instantly requested the court to Ignore the said letter and the photographs and to proceed to hear the matter further itself is sufficient proof of their innocence and bonafides. 14. It may further by submitted that the Deccan Herald and Prajavani newspapers are reputed newspaper and of long standing and are known for their honest and accurate reporting. The statement of the Appellant that the said reports are wrong and on the said wrong reports, the 1st Respondent cannot allege bias against judges etc., are unsustainable both in law and on facts. The statement of the Appellant that the said reports are wrong and on the said wrong reports, the 1st Respondent cannot allege bias against judges etc., are unsustainable both in law and on facts. X x x x 17. Re Para 10 & 11: I have explained in detail herein above that on one such occasion when Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath was invited specifically for a puja on one of the festival days along with other respectable persons like our donors, sponsors, etc. On that day Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath participated in the puja and after the puja, as is the custom, he was invited to accept one of the souvenirs, a photo frame of the temple deity, and prasadam. Souvenirs of the temple were given to all the invitees and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath was one among them. At the time when the photo frame was presented, various other members of the public were also present including devotees in large numbers and the members of the public and devotees have taken photographs of the said presentation made. It is pertinent of state here that except for the sanctum sanctorum of the temple where the main deity is situated, in all other places and especially during festivals, photography is freely permitted. It is significant to state here that the Appellants with a malafide intention influenced and allured, over a period of last nine years, the missionary devotees in about 20 in number to switch over their loyalties from Iskcon Bangalore to Iskcon Mumbai and who are now actively associated with the Appellants. It is submitted that such devotees who have defected to Iskcon Mumbai, may have given the photographs taken by them on that occasion to the Appellants, who may have dispatched the same to this Hon'ble Court in order to prejudice the case of the 1st Respondent. The Appellant. No. 1 admits that they have no knowledge about the averments made in Paragraph 6 and 7 of our affidavit. x x x x 19. Re para 13: I submit that the averment hat Jayapataka Swami Shishya Samuha is the creation of Mr. Madhu Pandit Dasa is absolutely false and baseless and hereby stoutly denied. It is submitted that the said organization by name Jayapataka Swami Shishya Samuha has been in existence for last three decades. x x x x 19. Re para 13: I submit that the averment hat Jayapataka Swami Shishya Samuha is the creation of Mr. Madhu Pandit Dasa is absolutely false and baseless and hereby stoutly denied. It is submitted that the said organization by name Jayapataka Swami Shishya Samuha has been in existence for last three decades. It is false to state that it is the creation of Sri Madhu pandit Das. It is true to state here that Sri Madhu Pandit Das was once elected as the chairman of the said Samuha in the year 1983 or 84. Since the beginning of the theological dispute in 1999 with Jayapataka swami, Madhu Pandit Das has nothing to do with Jayapataka Swami Sishya Samuh. It is Significant to state that the said organization consists of thousands of disciples of Jayapataka Swami, Defendant No. 4 in the suit. Several Disciples of Jayapataka Swami even reside in the address from which the Anonymous Letter has been sent as seen on the face of the envelope. The 1st Respondent submits that one of the member of the said organization must have been responsible for sending the said cover which is also evident from the address shown in the cover received by this Hon'ble court, apprehending adverse judgment by this Bench against the first appellant, since Mr. Justice K.L. Manjunath has visited the Bangalore Iskcon temple several times prior to 2003. 20. Re Para 14: The 1st respondent submits that as explained earlier, the appellant having allured certain missionary devotees of the 1st Respondent who are now actively supporting the appellant and are working for it, might have committed this mischief by stealing he photographs from the various available sources and indulged to prejudice the case of the 1st Respondent before this Hon'ble Court. In the said paragraph it is stated that the appeal was heard at great length and at this stage the 1st respondent is attempting to ensure that the said appeal is not heard by the said bench are not correct and is absolutely false. The fact is that the said appeal came to be heard for about Vi hour on merits on 02.07.2009. It is pertinent to state here that the judgment of the Trial Court In O.S.N. 7934 is running into about 400 pages and the appeal paper books in 18 volumes contained about 6000 to 7000 pages. The fact is that the said appeal came to be heard for about Vi hour on merits on 02.07.2009. It is pertinent to state here that the judgment of the Trial Court In O.S.N. 7934 is running into about 400 pages and the appeal paper books in 18 volumes contained about 6000 to 7000 pages. The other averments made in these paragraphs are not admitted and are hereby stoutly denied. x x x x 27. Re Para 28: The averment regarding the observations made in O.S. No. 4169/2001 by the High Court of Bombay is not relevant so far as the 1st Respondent is concerned, since the 1st Respondent was not a party to the said proceedings. x x x x 31. Re Para 32: It is respectfully submitted that the 1st Respondent is not responsible for sending the cover with photographs to this Hon'ble court and they have never indulged in blackmailing the judiciary and in degenerating the judges and have not further indulged in bench hunting etc. as alleged by the Appellant. I submit that few documentary evidence produced, clearly demonstrates the conduct of the Appellant. No. 1 in indulging and committing theft of valuable documents from the possession of the 1st Respondent and these documentary evidence positively establishes the fact that it is the appellant who has indulged in sending the said anonymous letter and photographs to this Hon'ble Court, definitely with the purpose of prejudicing the case of the 1st Respondent pending before this Hon'ble Court. The 1st Respondent emphatically states that the said act positively committed by the Appellant requires a proper and thorough enquiry and investigation. x x x x 33. Re para 35: I submit that the allegation that Mr Madhu Pandit Das, Jai Chaitanya Das and others are anonymously trying to scandalize the Judges is absolutely false. The senior counsel on 17/07/2009 mentioned before the court about what he stated on 10/07/2009 and not as averred in this para. 25. According to Black's Law Dictionary "5th Edition" bias is a "condition of mind which sways judgment and renders a judge unable to exercise his functions impartially in particular case." There are various types of bias, but bias on the part of a person acting in a judicial capacity is called judicial bias. 26. 25. According to Black's Law Dictionary "5th Edition" bias is a "condition of mind which sways judgment and renders a judge unable to exercise his functions impartially in particular case." There are various types of bias, but bias on the part of a person acting in a judicial capacity is called judicial bias. 26. In the context of bias, the English Courts have opined that to disqualify a person from acting in a judicial or a quasi-judicial capacity on the ground of interest in the subject matter of the proceeding, a real likelihood of bias must be shown not only from the materials in fact ascertained by the party complaining, but from such other facts as he might readily have ascertained and easily verified in the course of his inquiries. However, vague suspicions of whimsical, capricious and unreasonable people should not be made a standard to regulate the action of the court. It might be a different matter if suspicion rested or reasonable grounds was reasonably generated, but certainly mere flimsy, elusive, morbid suspicions should not be permitted to form a ground of decision. 27. In the case of International Airports Authority of India Vs. K.D. Bali and Anr, AIR 1988 SC 1099 it is observed that it is not every suspicion held by a party which must lead to the conclusion that the authority hearing the proceedings is biased. The apprehension must be judged from a healthy, reasonable and average point of view and not on mere apprehension of any whimsical person. The reasonable apprehension, it may be noted, must be based on cogent materials. 28. In this context it would be of relevance to quote from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Viswanathan Vs. Rukn-Ul-Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid, AIR 1963 SC 1 wherein it is stated as follows: The rule of law about judicial conduct is as strict as it is old. No judge can be considered to be competent to hear a case in which he is directly or indirectly interested. A proved interest in a judge not only disqualifies him but renders his Judgment a nullity. There is yet another rule of judicial conduct which bears upon the hearing of case. In that, the judge is expected to be serene and even-handed, even though his patience may be sorely tried and the time of the court appear to be wasted. A proved interest in a judge not only disqualifies him but renders his Judgment a nullity. There is yet another rule of judicial conduct which bears upon the hearing of case. In that, the judge is expected to be serene and even-handed, even though his patience may be sorely tried and the time of the court appear to be wasted. This is based on the maxim which is often repeated that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done. No litigant should leave the court feeling reasonably that his case was not heard or considered on its merit. If he does, then justice, even though done in the case, fails in the doing of it. 29. The said observations were made in the context of an allegation made in the said case about a friendship between Medappa, C.J., of this Court and A. Wajid and Mannaji Rao. In support of his allegation, Medappa, C.J. and Wajid were great friends, Vishwanathan swore to a few affidavits. Some other affidavits were sworn before the Supreme Court when certain proceedings for a writ of prohibition were commenced. The Supreme Court considered as to whether Medappa, C.J., was so interested as to be disqualified or that he acted in a manner that his conduct in court was a denial of justice and answered that apart from the fact that Abdul Wajid denied familiarity though not acquaintance with Medappa, C.J., there were no instances of undue leaning in favour of the executors of the Will. The court went on to show that what happened in the case was engineered by one Sri. Raju as the letters of Vishwanathan himself suggested. According to the Supreme Court, the family which did not know how to get on the right side of a father, however obdurate, acted in much the same way with the court. Their conduct on and from the announcement of the Full Bench was calculated to exasperate and annoy any judge who held his own reputation dear. According to the Supreme Court, the conduct of the sons of Vishwanathan was studied and designed to further their move for a different Bench. Their conduct on and from the announcement of the Full Bench was calculated to exasperate and annoy any judge who held his own reputation dear. According to the Supreme Court, the conduct of the sons of Vishwanathan was studied and designed to further their move for a different Bench. Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that though Medappa C.J., had heard and decided the probate case against the family, but that circumstance was not enough to disqualify him from sitting on a Bench to hear a case in which more evidence had been let in. As far as the allegations about the conduct of Balakrishnaiah, J., was concerned, there were allegations made in the affidavits stating that he had made hostile remarks against the case of Ramalingam while hearing the appeal with Kandaswamy Pillai, J., but the Supreme Court remarked: If every remark of a judge made from the Bench is to be construed as indicating prejudice, I am afraid most judges will fail to pass the exacting test In the course of arguments, judges express opinions, tentatively formed, sometimes even strongly; but that does not always mean that the case has been prejudged. An argument in court can never be effective if the judges do not sometimes point out what appears to be the underlying fallacy in the apparent plausibility thereof, and any lawyer or litigant, who forms an apprehension on that score, cannot be said to be reasonably doing so. It has frequently been noticed that the objection of a Judge breaks down on a closer examination and often enough, some judges acknowledge publicly that they were mistaken. Of course, if the Judge unreasonably obstructs the flow of an argument or does not allow it to be raised, it may be said that there has been no fair hearing. 30. On the basis of the above principles, the instant application is considered. On a detailed consideration of the material on record and also the submission made by the learned Senior counsel for the applicant/respondent No. 1, as already stated the apprehension in the mind of the applicant with regard to Manjunath J, hearing the matter is based on the order dated 10.7.2009 and the newspaper reports of the proceedings dated 10.7.2009. On a detailed consideration of the material on record and also the submission made by the learned Senior counsel for the applicant/respondent No. 1, as already stated the apprehension in the mind of the applicant with regard to Manjunath J, hearing the matter is based on the order dated 10.7.2009 and the newspaper reports of the proceedings dated 10.7.2009. Apart from these two aspects we do not find any other detail mentioned either in the application or in the affidavits to contend that Manjunath J, should not hear the appeal. In fact, the entire controversy has its genesis in the two learned Judges who were hearing the appeal receiving a courier containing photographs and questioning as to how Manjunath J, could hear the appeal. It is only on account on the said courier that the order dated 10.7.2009 was passed by the Bench and the proceedings of the said date were reported in various newspapers on 11.7.2009. Whatever may be the merits of the controversy with regard to the persons who had sent the courier to the two learned Judges or attempted to obstruct the hearing of the appeal, one thing becomes clear, that is, but for the said controversial courier which resulted in the order dated 10.7.2009 being made and the consequent reporting of the proceedings of the said date in the various newspapers, the applicant had no other apprehension whatsoever. In fact on a detailed examination of the material on record, we do not find any other material which is stated to be the basis of bias on the part of the Manjunath J, which may be a reason for him to rescue from hearing the appeal. In fact when the issue of the receipt of courier was raised by the Bench on 10.7.2009, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant immediately submitted that the same should be ignored as respondent No. 1 had full faith in the Bench hearing the appeal. Under the circumstances we fail to understand as to how the applicant can take advantage of the controversy with regard to the courier sent to the two learned Judges hearing the appeal and the proceedings dated 10.7.2009 and the newspaper reporting of the said proceedings to contend that Manjunath J, is biased against the applicant and therefore, he should not hear the appeal. But for the controversy regarding the courier being sent to the learned Judges hearing of the appeal which had commenced even prior to 10.7.2009, there is no other point raised in the application under consideration. If at all there was any apprehension in the mind of the applicant, the same could have been expressed prior to the commencement of the appeal, but once the arguments in the appeal commenced it is not proper on the part of any litigant or counsel to state that court is biased against a particular party by relying on the order dated 10.7.2009 and the newspaper reports. 31. Learned Senior Counsel who argued the application repeatedly referred to the order dated 10.7.2009 and particularly to the sentence "when the photograph is taken by Iskcon, Bangalore in 2003 it is for them to explain how this could be sent in the name of the opposite party." The said sentence along with the observations "we are of the opinion that it is a blackmail tactics adopted by the persons who are involved to scandalize and bring down the reputation of this Court" are stated to be the basis of having an apprehension that Manjunath J, is biased against the applicant. On a reading of the said observations we do not find that they can impute bias in the mind of Manjunath J, against the applicant. The fact that the courier was received by both Manjunath J, and Kumaraswamy J, is not is dispute. The contents of the courier were according to the Judges a blackmail tactics adopted by the persons involved to scandalize and bring down the reputation of this Court. It is also not in dispute that the photograph sent in the courier was taken at Iskcon, Bangalore, but the said photograph was sent in the name of the opposite party namely the respondent in this applicant. Under the circumstances a direction was given to both the parties to file affidavits giving explanation. The direction given to both the parties to explain per se means that the court was concerned to find out as to who are the persons who were involved in sending the courier to the Judges. There is no conclusion of any issue in the matter and much less a conclusion that Iskcon, Bangalore was responsible for sending the courier in the name of the opposite party. There is no conclusion of any issue in the matter and much less a conclusion that Iskcon, Bangalore was responsible for sending the courier in the name of the opposite party. Therefore, in our considered view the contents of the order dated 10.7.209 can in no way be held to have caused any suspicion or apprehension in the mind of the applicant. 32. As far as the newspaper reports are concerned/certain observations made by Manjunath J, on 10.7.2009 are reported. The observations which are quoted in the newspaper reports cannot be considered in isolation. The said observations which are quoted in the press have to be read in the context of the order dated 10.7.2009. If on 10.7.2009 learned Senior Counsel and other counsel appearing for the applicant expressed their confidence I the Bench hearing the matter and that applicant/respondent No. 1 was not responsible for sending any cover with photographers, we are unable to understand as to how the newspaper reporting of certain observations of Manjunath J, could have lead to any apprehension in the mind of the applicant. Under the circumstances we hold that the applicant has failed to make out a case in the application filed. 33. As we have already stated that but for the controversy regarding the courier received by the learned Judges who were hearing the appeal, the same would have proceeded in the usual course. We re-iterate that when the court brought to the notice of the counsel on both sides about the receipt of the courier containing photographs and certain comments, both sides openly reposed confidence in the Bench and in fact the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant also stated that the applicant had no objection or grievance to the Bench hearing the matter. If that was the position as on 10.7.2009, we fail to understand as to how the order dated 10.7.2009 and the subsequent newspaper reporting of the said order could have lead to any apprehension in the mind of the applicant. 34. At this stage it would be of relevance to refer to the citations relied upon on both sides. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant has cited the following decisions: 35. The case of P.K. Ghosh, I.A.S. and another Vs. 34. At this stage it would be of relevance to refer to the citations relied upon on both sides. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant has cited the following decisions: 35. The case of P.K. Ghosh, I.A.S. and another Vs. J.G. Rajput, AIR 1996 SC 513 has been cited to contend that the Apex Court noted in the said decision that a learned Judge of the Gujrat High Court should not have proceeded in hearing the contempt petition inspite of the specific objection which was not an unreasonable one on the undisputed facts. 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 Judge should rescue himself from the Bench hearing the matter. The facts in the said case were that a person who had been suspended by the Municipal Corporation had challenged the said order of suspension and Sri. B.J. Sethna (since elevated as a Judge) appeared and had obtained an order of stay of the suspension. However, the contempt proceedings were initiated against the Corporation since they had not complied with an undertaking mentioned in terms of a compromise dated 28.2.1990. The said contempt proceeding was registered as Misc. Cvl. Application 1841/1993 which came up before a Division Bench of Gujrat High Court, one of whom was Mr. Justice B.J. Sethna and notice was issued returnable on 29.12.1993. When it came up for hearing before the said Bench, objection was raised that it should not be heard by the said Bench because Mr. Justice B.J. Sethna had appeared as a counsel on the first hearing. This request was not acceded to. Again the same objection was raised on 10.3.1994 but not acceded to. On 18.3.1994 notice was issued and enquiry proceedings initiated against the complainant were stayed. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.3.1994 Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court. In the said Special Leave it was opined that Sethna. J, should not have heard the matter in the contempt petition. On 18.3.1994 notice was issued and enquiry proceedings initiated against the complainant were stayed. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.3.1994 Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court. In the said Special Leave it was opined that Sethna. J, should not have heard the matter in the contempt petition. The facts of this case are quite different from the facts in the present case, as the present application arises on account of the developments which have occurred during the pendency of the appeal after the commencement of its hearing and therefore while we respectfully subscribe to the views expressed by the Supreme Court in the said decision, we find that the same cannot be applied in view of the facts of the present case. 36. In the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Shivananda Pathak and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2050 , the facts were that six Assistant Computors had filed a writ petition seeking promotion to the post of Inspector of minimum wages, Inspector of Trade Unions, other Inspectors, Investigators, Supervisors etc., of the West Bengal Sub-ordinate Labour Service. The said writ petition came up for hearing before Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar Sen Gupta (since retired). The writ petition was allowed with a direction that Assistant Computers be promoted with effect from 13.3.1980. The said direction was challenged by a number of affected employees (32 employees] who filed an appeal before the Division Bench. After hearing, the Division Bench modified the above direction by directing the authorities concerned to consider the cases of promotion of the appellant as also the writ petitioners in accordance with law. The said order virtually disposed the appeal. In compliance with the said direction the State of West Bengal promoted 40 employees. Two years later some of the persons who had earlier filed a writ petition filed another writ petition praying for payment of arrears of salary and allowances with effect from 13.3.1980 In terms of the Judgment and order dated 21.8.2004 passed by Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar Sen Gupta. The said writ petition was disposed of and the said Judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court. One of the contentions raised was that Ajit Kumar Sen Gupta. Justice Ajit Kumar Sen Gupta. The said writ petition was disposed of and the said Judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court. One of the contentions raised was that Ajit Kumar Sen Gupta. J, who had expressed his views as a single Judge in the first writ petition should not have sat on the same Bench between the same parties though initiated on a subsequent writ petition. The question, therefore was, whether Ajit Kumar Sen Gupta. J, could sit on the Division Bench to decide the appeal against the Judgment passed in the second writ petition. After referring to the concept of bias the Apex Court held that it was not competent for Ajlt Kumar Sen Gupta. J, to have presided over the Bench in which the impugned judgment was passed as he had already expressed his opinion in the earlier writ petition which was over ruled. He should have dis-associated himself from the Bench. While saying so, the Supreme Court made a distinction between pre-judging of facts specifically relating to a party, as against pre-conceptions or pre-dispositions about general questions of law, policy or discretion. The implication is that in the former case, a judge would disqualify himself in the latter case, he may not. However, emphasis on this decision by the applicant is on the tests for bias namely "real likelihood of bias" or "reasonable suspicion of bias" on which de Smith in Judicial Review of Administrative Action has explained that "reasonable suspicion test looks mainly to outward appearance while "real likelihood" test focuses on the court's own evaluation of the probabilities. However, on account of the reasons that we have assigned while considering the application, we find that the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 37. In the case of G.N. Nayak Vs. Goa University and Others, AIR 2002 SC 790 , it is stated that 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. Since bias is considered to be an extension of principles of natural justice, that no man should be a Judge in his own cause. It must be a prejudice which is not founded on reason and actuated by self-interest-whether pecuniary or personal. Since bias is considered to be an extension of principles of natural justice, that no man should be a Judge in his own cause. A litigant to successfully impugn an action must establish a reasonable possibility of bias or prove circumstances from which the operation of influences affecting a fair assessment of the merits of the case can be inferred. In the said case the facts related to the selection to a post of Professor of Marine Science in the University of Goa and in that context, it was stated that it is not every kind of bias which in law is taken to vitiate an act. 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 officers along with others for promotion. 38. In the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, (2007) CriLJ 1786, a Sessions Judge at Raipur had not shown any dis-inclination to hear the matter although his brother was known to some political heavy weight which according to the Sessions Judge could not stand in the way of discharging his judicial function impartially without fear and favour. Transfer of the said case was sought on the ground that the Sessions Judge before whom the trial was pending was the elder brother of sitting MLA who was very close to the father of one of the main accused. Since the trial court was at the final stage and about 150 prosecution witnesses and all the defence witnesses were examined and what remained to be done in the case was to hear the arguments and post the judgment, The prayer before the Chattisgarh High Court for transferring the petition was rejected, against which, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court. In the said decision the Supreme Court opined that "A judicial officer in whatever capacity he may be functioning has to act with the belief that he is not to be guided by any factor other than to ensure that he shall render a free and fair decision, which according to his conscience is the right one on the basis of the materials placed before him. There can be no exceptions to this imperative, but at the same time there should not be any scope given to any person to go away with the feeling that the Judge was biased, however unfounded the impression may be." In the above view, the Supreme Court in order to ensure that justice is not only done, but also seen to be done and on the peculiar facts of the said case, despite being sure that the Sessions Judge would have acted in the true sense of a judicial officer, felt appropriate to transfer the case to some other Sessions Court in Raipur by making clear that the transfer should not be construed as casting any aspersions on the learned Sessions Judge. We have taken note of this decision and have acted accordingly keeping in mind the observations made therein. 39. In the case of Rattan Lal Sharma Vs. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-education) Higher Secondary School and others, AIR 1993 SC 2155 the test of bias has been indicated by stating that it is whether a reasonable intelligent man, fully apprised of all the circumstances, would feel a serious apprehension of bias. In the said case reference has been made to several English decisions and Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol.2 para 551. 40. Lastly, the order of the Supreme Court dated 6.7.2009 in R.P. No. 999/2009 in SLP (C) 5939/2009 was cited to draw our attention to the fact that even after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition when the petitioner had expressed that one of the Judges was biased during the hearing and in view of the said apprehension of the petitioner, the dismissal of Special Leave Petition was withdrawn and the matter was directed to be placed before another Bench for consideration. We have also taken note of the said order of the Supreme Court and have acted accordingly. 41. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent in the application has cited the following decisions: 42. We have also taken note of the said order of the Supreme Court and have acted accordingly. 41. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent in the application has cited the following decisions: 42. In the case of M.Y. Shareef and Another Vs. The Hon'ble Judges of The High Court of Nagpur and Others, AIR 1955 SC 19 is with regard to an application for the transfer of the case from the Bench hearing it to another Bench of the High Court on the basis that the observations and reference to the Supreme Court by Rao & Deo JJ, created bonafide belief in the applicant's mind that they were prejudiced against him and had made up their minds and indicated that he shall have to go in appeal to the Supreme Court. The High Court held that the application for transfer constituted contempt because the Judges were scandalized with a view to divert justice, the two advocates who signed and prosecuted the application were found guilty of contempt. The Supreme Court held that when there is conflict between an obligation of a counsel to the court and his duty to the client, it is the former which prevails in the following words, "when counsel signed applications or pleadings containing matter scandalizing the court without reasonably satisfying themselves about the prima facie existence of adequate grounds therefore with a view to prevent or delay the course of justice, are themselves guilty of contempt of court and that it is no duty of a counsel to his client to take any interest in such applications; on the other hand, his duty is to advise his client for refraining from making allegations of this nature in such applications". 43. In the case of Radha Mohan Lal Vs. Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), AIR 2003 SC 1467 it is held that the initiation of proceedings for contempt of court was on the basis of the averments made in para 4 of the application dated 18.9.1991 made before a learned single Judge of the said court in a Civil Revision petition which was listed before the learned judge. The applicant claimed that some observations made by the learned Judge on 13.9.1991 in the course of hearing argument led to about fifty senior citizens representing to the Chief Justice that the petition be heard by some other Judge. The applicant claimed that some observations made by the learned Judge on 13.9.1991 in the course of hearing argument led to about fifty senior citizens representing to the Chief Justice that the petition be heard by some other Judge. On 18.9.1992 when the matter came up for hearing before the learned single judge, the fact of representation having been made to the Chief Justice was given out and this led to the filing of the application dated 18.9.1991. Ultimately, the averments led to initiation of proceedings for contempt of court and the finding of contempt and finding and punishment on the appellants as well as his advocate. The same was challenged before the Supreme Court, which upheld the Judgment but accepted the apology of the appellant and set aside the punishment of simple imprisonment and also the fine imposed on him. However, the Supreme Court held that the liberty of free expression cannot be equated or confused with a licence to make unfounded and irresponsible allegations against the judiciary as the effect is lowering of the dignity and authority of the court and an affront to the majesty of justice. Referring to the case of Shamsher Singh Bedi Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, AIR 1995 SC 1974 the court held that an advocate cannot escape his responsibility for drafting a scandalous notice to a Magistrate on the ground that he did so in his professional capacity. An advocate is not merely an agent or servant of his client, he is an officer of the court. He owes a duty towards the court. There can be nothing more serious than an act of an advocate if it tends to impede, obstruct or prevent the administration of law or it destroys the confidence of the people in such administration. 44. Reference was made to a decision in the case of M.B. Sanghi, Adv. Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others, AIR 1991 SC 1834 wherein it is said that "the tendency of maligning the reputation of judicial officers by disgruntled elements who fail to secure the desired order is ever on the increase and it is high time it is nipped in the bud. Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others, AIR 1991 SC 1834 wherein it is said that "the tendency of maligning the reputation of judicial officers by disgruntled elements who fail to secure the desired order is ever on the increase and it is high time it is nipped in the bud. And, when a member of the profession resorts to such cheap gimmicks with a view to browbeating the Judge into submission, it is all the more painful When there is a deliberate attempt to scandalise which would shake the confidence of the litigant public in the system the damage caused is not only to the reputation of the Judge concerned but also to the fair name of the judiciary. .... Such cases raise larger issues touching the independence of not only the Judge concerned but the entire institution.... It is high time that we realise that much cherished judicial independence has to be protected not only from the executive or the legislature but also from those who are an integral part of the system. 45. In the case of M/s. Chetak Construction Ltd. Vs. Om Prakash and Ors., (1998) 4 AD SC 220 it was stated that no lawyer or litigant should be permitted to brow beat the court or malign the Presiding Officer to obtain favourable orders. The lawyers and litigants cannot be allowed to "terrorize" or "intimidate" Judges with a view to "secure" orders, which they want and that any attempt made on the part of the litigant to go "forum shopping" or to have "choice" of the "forum" must be crushed with the heavy hand. While at the same time it was stated that Judges must act impartially referees and decide cases objectively uninfluenced by any personal bias or prejudice. In the said case learned single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court having been appraised of the facts and circumstances of the case did not continue to hear the appeal but while technically recusing himself had made certain comments so as to give vent to his feelings. The question arose before the Supreme Court as to whether the learned single Judge should have continued to hear the appeal or recue himself. The question arose before the Supreme Court as to whether the learned single Judge should have continued to hear the appeal or recue himself. While referring to the said comments at para 20 of the Judgment, the Supreme Court held that it was open to the learned Judge to hold an enquiry into the matter and take appropriate action. It is relevant to state that in the instant case in the order dated 10.7.2009 a direction was issued to both the parties to file affidavits with regard to the sending of the courier containing the photographs and comments to the Judges hearing the appeal and there has been no prejudging or conclusion in the matter. 46. In the case of K. Subba Rao Vs. Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corporation Ltd. and Others, AIR 2002 AP 183 the facts were that the matter was heard by the Bench in the forenoon and again the case was taken up at 2.15p.m. At that time, counsel for the appellant stated that the writ petition be posted before some other Bench since one of the learned Judges on the Bench (Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan, J. as he then was) had taken a view that the writ petition against Southern Petrochemicals was not maintainable, as it was neither an instrumentality nor an authority of the State. While directing the Registry to place the matter before another Bench the court opined as follows: It is unfortunate that such a representation was made by the learned Counsel for the appellant/petitioner since one of us has taken the view while deciding an identical case against the very spme Corporation as a Judge of Madras High Court. It is settled law that counsel and parties cannot choose the Bench and Bench hunting is deprecated. We are very much disturbed in regard to the representation made. We are therefore, not inclined to hear this matter. 47. Two decisions reported in S.A. Khan Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Another, (1993) 3 SCC 151 and Dr. B. Singh Vs. It is settled law that counsel and parties cannot choose the Bench and Bench hunting is deprecated. We are very much disturbed in regard to the representation made. We are therefore, not inclined to hear this matter. 47. Two decisions reported in S.A. Khan Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Another, (1993) 3 SCC 151 and Dr. B. Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 2004 SC 1923 have been cited to contend that newspaper reports, being only hearsay evidence cannot be relied upon for initiating contempt proceedings and that it is too much to attribute authenticity or credibility to any information or the fact merely because it found publication in a newspaper or journal or magazine or any other form of communication as though it is gospel truth. Reliance is placed on the said decision is in the context of the applicant attempting to make out a case of bias on the basis of the newspaper reports dated 11.7.2009 with regard to the proceedings held on 10.7.2009. Though the deponent was present in court on 10.7.2009 when certain observations had been made by Manjunath J, (which fact is evident from his affidavit) the applicant did not perceive any suspicion of bias on the observations made by the learned Judge on 10.7.2009. However, what is stated in the application is that the reporting of the said observations in the press had given rise to an apprehension in the mind of the applicant that there was bias on the part of the Manjunath J. 48. Two other decisions reported in State of Rajasthan Vs. Prakash Chand and Others, AIR 1998 SC 1344 and State of Karnataka and Others Vs. B. Krishna Bhat and Others, ILR (2001) KAR 2030 with regard to the administrative powers of Chief Justice to constitute Benches providing roster and transfer cases have been cited in the context of the order dated 13.8.2009 passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on the administrative side directing that the matter be posted before a Bench headed by Manjunath J. We do not have any view contrary to what has been stated in the said decisions. However, despite the allocation of work by the Chief Justice of a court it is the prerogative of the concerned Judge to rescue himself from hearing the matter if the facts and circumstances present a situation which necessitates a Judge from rescue himself in a matter. Therefore, while it is the duty of a judge to dispose of the cases allocated by the Chief Justice of a court, the propriety not to hear a matter lies with the concerned Judge. 49. The reasons we have assigned on the issue of bias are supported by the decisions and keeping in mind the precedents cited on both sides, we are of the firm view that the application being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. If the appellant has full faith in the Bench, we fail to understand as to why the appellant would have sent the courier asking Manjunath J, not to hear the matter. If the respondent also had full faith in the Bench, then we fail to understand as to how the respondent would have sent the letter in the name of the appellant. The truth however, has to be discovered by a thorough investigation. We therefore cannot allow the matter to rest. 50. At this stage it would be pertinent to refer to two letters dated 15.7.2009 and 24.7.2009 written by Sri. S.V. Srinivasan and Sri. S. Shekar Shetty, Advocates and received by the Private Secretary of Manjunath J., at his chambers in the court. On reading of the said letters, it gives an impression that the applicant/respondent No. 1 herein have tried to get the authors of the said letters to appear on its behalf. It is a matter of record, vide order dated 7.8.2009 that the authors of the said letters were erstwhile senior and colleague respectively to Manjunath J. The said letters state that Sri. S.A. Maruti Prasad, Advocate and Sri. V. Ramesh Babu, Advocate had approached them to appear in this appeal and that they had declined to do so. Under the circumstances and in the light of the submission made by Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathy, Senior Counsel for the applicant on 7.8.2009 that the said two advocates had denied of having approached the authors of the said letters addressed to Manjunath J, a direction was given to Sri. Under the circumstances and in the light of the submission made by Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathy, Senior Counsel for the applicant on 7.8.2009 that the said two advocates had denied of having approached the authors of the said letters addressed to Manjunath J, a direction was given to Sri. S.A. Maruti Prasad and V. Ramesh Babu, Advocates to file their affidavits by collecting the copies of the said letters in the court hall itself. But, the said letters were not received in the court hall. However, on 18.8.2009 a memo filed seeking a direction to the Registry to furnish a copy of the letter written by the two advocates so as to file the affidavit. The fact remains that there is no affidavit filed by the concerned advocates. 51. It would not be out of context to mention the role of a Judge in an Advesarial System of Administration of Justice. It is said that the Judge is nothing but the law speaking and a good Judge conceives quickly, judges slowly. It is the duty of the Judge to enquire not only into the matter, but into the circumstances of the matter. A Judge must bear in mind that when he tries a case he is himself on trial and when he put on his robes, he put. off his relation to any. When the Judges are put in an ivory tower, then justice is also in an ivory tower. It would also be relevant to quote Rose E. Bird, American Jurist and Chief Justice, California State Supreme Court who said in the year 1978: To some extent the questioning of the courts is simply port of the increased attention that has been paid to all our institutions over the past several yeas. What concerns me is that the focus of this questioning of the courts seems to be not on matters of substance but rather on points of prejudice and personal pique, A judge's integrity, fairness, temperament and knowledge of the law are all pertinent areas for public inquiry. However, what is happening instead is that judges are being perceived as easy targets and are being portrayed In a manner calculated to create prejudice in the public mind. 52. However, what is happening instead is that judges are being perceived as easy targets and are being portrayed In a manner calculated to create prejudice in the public mind. 52. If the forum of the judicial process is allowed to mount scurrilous attack on a judge, the question arises whether the forum of the judicial process of vilification of the judges or Imputations to the judges In the pleadings presented to the court would give liberty of freedom of expression to an advocate or a litigant. 53. The above question was raised in the case of Dr. D.C. Saxena, Contemnor Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, (1996) 5 AD SC 404 which is a case which called to strike a balance between freedom of speech and contempt, the former, being a salutory right in a liberal democratic society. The Supreme Court upheld the freedom of expression as one of the basic conditions for the progress of advocacy and for the development of every man including the legal fraternity practicing the profession of law. According to the Supreme Court, the advocate or the party appearing to person, therefore, is given the liberty of expression, but they equally owe countervailing duty to maintain dignity, decorum and order in the court; proceedings or judicial process.. The liberty of free expression is not to be confounded or confused with licence to make unfounded allegations against any institution, much less the judiciary The court further held as follows; when an advocate or a party appearing before the court requires to conduct himself in a manner befitting to the dignity and decorum of the court, he cannot have a free licence to indulge in writing in the pleadings the scurrilous accusations or scandalisation against the Judge or the court. If the reputation and dignity of the Judge, who decides the case are allowed to be prescribed in the pleadings, the respect for the court would quickly disappear and independence of the judiciary would be a thing of the past. 54. The court further said that the judges do require a degree of detachment and objectivity in judicial dispensation, they being duty bound with the oath of office taken by them in adjudicating the dispute brought before the court. 54. The court further said that the judges do require a degree of detachment and objectivity in judicial dispensation, they being duty bound with the oath of office taken by them in adjudicating the dispute brought before the court. The objectivity or detachment cannot be obtained if the judges have constantly to look over their shoulders for fear of harassment and abuse and irresponsible demands for prosecution, resignation or to refrain from discharging their duties pending further action. 55. In the case of in Re: S. Mulgaokar reported in AIR 1978 SC 727 his Lordship Krishna Iyer, J., in his divergent view and in his inimmitable style has given the broad guidelines based on precedentially validated judicial norms In the matter of the courts' jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for contempt suo motu, he held that after evaluating the totality of factors, if the court considers the attack on the judge or the judges scurrilous, offensive, intimidatory or malicious beyond condonable limits, the strong arm of the law must, in the name of public interest and public justice, strike a blow on him who challenges the supremacy of the rule of law by fouling its source and stream. 56. In the said opinion reference was made to a decision Queen v. Gray (1900) 2 ABD 36 to distinguish between any act done or writing published, calculated to bring a court or a judge of the court into contempt, or to lower his authority which is a class of contempt of court and any act done or writing published calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice or the lawful process of the courts which is another class of contempt. The former class belongs to the category of scandalizing a court or a judge. Another distinction has been accepted in the case of Perspective Publications (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 221 where it is said that the distinction made is between a mere libel or defamation of a judge and what amounts to a contempt of the court. According to the Supreme Court, the test in each case would be whether the impugned publication is a mere defamatory attack on the judge or whether it is calculated to interfere with the due course of justice or the proper administration of law by this Court. According to the Supreme Court, the test in each case would be whether the impugned publication is a mere defamatory attack on the judge or whether it is calculated to interfere with the due course of justice or the proper administration of law by this Court. It is only in the latter case that it will be punishable as contempt. Alternatively, the test will be whether the wrong is done to the judge personally or it is done to the public. The publication of a disparaging statement will be an injury to the public if it tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the people regarding the integrity, ability or fairness of the judge or to deter actual and prospective litigants from placing complete reliance upon the court's administration of justice or if it is likely to cause embarassment in the mind of the judge himself in the discharge of his judicial duties. 57. According to the Supreme Court, it is open to any one to express fair, reasonable and legitimate criticism of any act or conduct of a judge in his judicial capacity or even to make a proper and fair comment on any decision given by him because "justice is not a cloistered virtue and she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men." However, that does not mean that a litigant or a member of a public can wrongly assume that he is privileged to say that he can say anything against a judge. The judges are expected to perform their duties in accordance with law, but they cannot be maligned for that protection must be extended to them so that they are able to function fearlessly. 58. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the case of Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, AIR 1988 SC 107 wherein petition was filed by an experienced advocate of the Supreme Court by way of a public interest litigation which according to the Court was couched in unsavoury language, with an intentional attempt to indulge in mudslinging against the advocates, Supreme Court and also other constitutional institutions. Union of India (UOI) and Another, AIR 1988 SC 107 wherein petition was filed by an experienced advocate of the Supreme Court by way of a public interest litigation which according to the Court was couched in unsavoury language, with an intentional attempt to indulge in mudslinging against the advocates, Supreme Court and also other constitutional institutions. At one place in the writ petition, the petitioner had alleged that- Thus the working of the judges are cocktail based on Western Common Laws and American techniques, as such unproductive and out-dated according to socio-economic conditions of the country. At one another place, the petitioner has stated that: This Court has become a constitutional liability without having control over the illegal acts of the Government....Thus the people for whom the Constitution is meant have now turned down their faces against it which is a disillusionment for fear that justice is a will of the wisp. Yet at another place the petitioner has stated that this Court is sleeping over the issues like Kumbhkarna.... The Supreme Court held that prima facie the petition had been drawn up with a designed purpose of bringing the Court into contempt and also expressed its surprise that an advocate with a considerable experience had chosen to act in such an irresponsible manner and directed the Registry to draw up an appropriate contempt proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act. 59. At this stage it is pertinent to mention that after the conclusion of the arguments on the instant application Manjunath. J, mentioned in the open court that on receipt of the courier, he along with Kumaraswamy. J, met the Hon'ble Chief Justice and showed the contents of the courier and at the said meeting Manjunath. J, categorically expressed that he would not hear the appeal and the matter be posted before any other Bench. But the Hon'ble Chief Justice stated that the said Bench only would have to hear the appeal. However, Manjunath. J, informed his Lordship Chief Justice that he was not inclined to hear the appeal on merits but that the matter has to be investigated and hence the matter was posted for that purpose and the order dated 10.7.2009 was passed in that regard. However, Manjunath. J, informed his Lordship Chief Justice that he was not inclined to hear the appeal on merits but that the matter has to be investigated and hence the matter was posted for that purpose and the order dated 10.7.2009 was passed in that regard. Thereafter in view of the orders dated 7.8.2009, the matter was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice the appeal was ordered to be posted before the Bench headed by Manjunath J. The same is borne out by the administrative order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 13.8.2009 by which the matter has been posted before the Eench headed by Manjunath. J, despite coming to know of this fact that Manjunath. J, was not inclined to hear the appeal. Even after hearing the above facts from Manjunath. J, the applicant and their counsel could have submitted that the application would not be pressed. On the other hand, an order on the said application was insisted upon by the applicant and the counsel for the applicant. 60. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant submitted that the plea of bias was made not only on the basis of the order dated 10.7.2009, the newspaper reports, affidavits filed but also on the instruction of the counsel. The instructing counsel and the senior advocate engaged by the applicant who were present in the court did not say anything contra and thereby have admitted that they had instructed the Senior Counsel to submit with regard to the prayer made in the application. It is unfortunate that the instructing counsel Mr. Ron and the Senior Counsel Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathi who were present in court did not understand and realise the implication of the observations made by Manjunath. J after the conclusion of the arguments on both sides that he was not inclined to hear the appeal. This was the best opportunity, the applicant had to withdraw the application, unfortunately "wise counsel" did not prevail even at that stage. 61. After the conclusion of the arguments on the application, Manjunath. J, also stated that he had stopped visiting Bangalore ISKCON since he was not having a feeling of devotion, considering the fact that the deities are quite different from the deities in the temples in South India and that this fact was mentioned and in particular it was suggested to Sri. J, also stated that he had stopped visiting Bangalore ISKCON since he was not having a feeling of devotion, considering the fact that the deities are quite different from the deities in the temples in South India and that this fact was mentioned and in particular it was suggested to Sri. S.A. Maruti Prasad, Advocate, who was present in court that this was the reason why he had stopped visiting the temple since the year 2003 and which was also known to him and the same was admitted by Sri. Maruti Prasad, Advocate in court on 10.7.2009. But the newspapers had reported as follows: He said he used to visit the temple as a devotee until 2003 and stopped thereafter due to several doubts, this should not happen to the innocent devotees visiting temples. Though the reason for not visiting the temples since 2003 was clarified with Sri. Maruti Prasad, Advocate, even then the applicant and their counsel did not realise that the newspaper reporting of the proceedings dated 10.7.2009 could not have been the basis of the application. 62. As far as the role of the advocates of the applicant in this case is concerned, from the order dated 10.7.2009, it is apparent that Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathi, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submitted that he and his clients had full confidence in the court and that his clients were not responsible for sending the cover with photographs. Sri. S.A. Maruthi Prasad, Advocate for the applicant had admitted that prior to 2003, on three occasions on his invitation, Manjunath. J, had visited the temple and he further admitted that he alone was taking Judges to ISKCON. Bangalore on festival days. He also admitted that what was given as a gift was a photo of lord Krishna in a wooden frame in a presentation cover and no valuable gift had been given by ISKCON, Bangalore and that whenever Judges had visited ISKCON, Bangalore, photographs had been taken and all the photographs were with ISKCON, Bangalore. Though on 10.7.2009 learned Senior Counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant had full confidence in the court and is recorded in the order dated 10.7.2009, nevertheless the instant application has been filed and pursued. 63. Though on 10.7.2009 learned Senior Counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant had full confidence in the court and is recorded in the order dated 10.7.2009, nevertheless the instant application has been filed and pursued. 63. From the entire material on record what we perceive is a concerted effort made by applicant/respondent No. 1 and their advocates to see that the appeal is not heard by Manjunath. J. Though we do not say anything at this stage about the persons involved in sending the courier to the Judges hearing the appeal, yet the following facts have to be re-iterated. When the court raised the issue of the courier received by the Judges hearing the appeal, both the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Udaya Holla for the appellants and Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathi for the respondent No. 1 submitted that they had full confidence and faith in the Bench hearing the appeal. From the order dated 10.7.2009, it is also clear that Sri. S.A. Maruti Prasad, Advocate instructing Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathi, Senior Counsel, for the applicant/respondent No. 1, categorically admitted that it was at his instance, Manjunath. J, had visited ISKCON Bangalore and that a picture of Lord Krishna was presented to him sometime in the year 2003 had at that time, the photographs had been taken. Since the courier had been sent in the name of the appellant, both parties were directed to file affidavits and give explanation and the matter was adjourned to 31.7.2009 and later to 7.8.2009. In the interregnum, Manjunath J, received two letters addressed by Sri.S.Shekar Shetty, Advocate and Sri. S.V. Srinivasan, Advocate. In order to avoid any unpleasantness, these two letters were shown to Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathi and Sri. Udaya Holla, Senior Counsel on both sides and as per the request made by Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathi, Senior Counsel not to disclose the contents of the letter, the matter was adjourned from 31.7.2009 to 7.8.2009. On 7.8.2009 Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathi Senior Counsel in the presence of Sri. Ramesh Babu and Sri. Maruti Prasad, Advocates, denied the contents of the letters. Hence Sri. Ramesh Babu and Maruti Prasad, Advocates were directed to file their affidavits. But till the hearing of this application, the said affidavits had not been filed. Instead, a memo was filed seeking a direction to the Registry to furnish a copy of the letter written by the two advocates to file an affidavit. Hence Sri. Ramesh Babu and Maruti Prasad, Advocates were directed to file their affidavits. But till the hearing of this application, the said affidavits had not been filed. Instead, a memo was filed seeking a direction to the Registry to furnish a copy of the letter written by the two advocates to file an affidavit. Therefore, the said two advocates have intentionally avoided filing their affidavits. There are no reasons for Sri.Shekar Shetty and Sri. S.V. Srinivasan, Advocates who have nut in practice of about fifty years and forty years as advocates respectively to address such letters. These are the only two advocates who are disabled to appear in the court of Manjunath. J. There is no contra material placed so as to dis-believe the contents of these two letters. On 10.7.2009 having stated that respondent No. 1 had full confidence in the court, nevertheless has filed an application on 3.8.2009. But from the order dated 7.8.2009 and in the absence of affidavits of Sri. Ramesh Babu and Sri. S.A. Maruti Prasad, Advocates, we prima facie believe that the applicant and counsel for the applicant have left no stone unturned so as to avoid the appeal being heard by Manjunath. J. The filing of the application is like the proverbial last straw on the camel's back and a final attempt made by the applicant/respondent No. 1 to somehow ensure that the matter is not heard by Manjunath. J. Further the lengthy arguments made on the application by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and no attempt being made to withdraw the said application, even after Manjunath. J, clarifying in the open court that he had already mentioned to the Hon'ble Chief Justice that in view of the receipt of the courier and its contents, he was not inclined to hear the appeal, is nothing but a concerted effort made by the applicant/respondent No. 1 and the learned Counsel to ensure that the case is not heard by Manjuanth. J. In our view this is nothing but an aspect of "bench hunting tactics" adopted by the applicant so as to avoid Manjunath, J., from hearing the appeal which is nothing but "forum shopping" an ingenuity earlier adopted by the applicant/respondent No. 1 before the Mumbai High Court. If on 10.7.2009 learned Senior Counsel Sri. J. In our view this is nothing but an aspect of "bench hunting tactics" adopted by the applicant so as to avoid Manjunath, J., from hearing the appeal which is nothing but "forum shopping" an ingenuity earlier adopted by the applicant/respondent No. 1 before the Mumbai High Court. If on 10.7.2009 learned Senior Counsel Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathi appearing for respondent No. 1 categorically submitted that his clients i.e., respondent No. 1 had full confidence in the court hearing the appeal, we fail to understand as to how the controversy surrounding the receipt of courier by the Judges hearing the appeal, the order dated 10.7.2009 and the newspaper reporting in its own way the proceedings of 10.7.2009, could have led to the applicant/respondent No. 1 having a suspicion that Manjunath. J, was biased against the applicant. 64. It is well settled that any interference with the Judge in the discharge of his duties or in relation to his judicial functioning amounts to contempt. In fact, interference with the administration of justice can take different forms. The importance of non-interference in judges' discharge of duties is expressly stated in Article 211 of Constitution of India. It states that no discussion can take place in the legislature of a State with respect to the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court in the discharge of his duties. In the context of litigants and lawyers attempting to get a case released from a judge, the Supreme Court in the case of Chetak Construction Limited, referred to supra, deprecated such a practice as it would amount to forum shopping. This in our considered view amounts to interference with the administration of justice. 65. It is said that amongst the various types of misconduct by a counsel, there is none more reprehensible than such conduct as tends to impede, obstruct or prevent the administration of the law or to destroy the confidence of the people in such administration. In D.C. Saxena's case, referred to supra, the Supreme Court while acknowledging the fundamental right of an advocate to freedom of expression in arguing a case before the court, however, emphasized the countervailing duties of the advocate to the court as well as to the opposite party. In D.C. Saxena's case, referred to supra, the Supreme Court while acknowledging the fundamental right of an advocate to freedom of expression in arguing a case before the court, however, emphasized the countervailing duties of the advocate to the court as well as to the opposite party. Irresponsible and reckless allegations against a Judge or the judiciary cannot be condoned on the ground of his obligation to state whatever he is instructed to state by his client or on account of freedom of expression. 66. In Radha Mohan Lal's ease, referred to supra, the Supreme Court held that liberty of free expression cannot be equated with a licence to make unfounded and irresponsible allegations against the judiciary. An advocate who makes unjust Imputations of unfairness or bias against a, judge exposes himself to criminal contempt. In this context it is of relevance to quote from Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Annatte Remond Vttanwala Smt. 1987 Cri. L.J 1038 (Bom.DB) "It is in the larger interests of the administration of Justice that an example be made of such errant members of the profession, Instances of this kind are lately on the increase and the administration of justice is being perverted at various levels in various ways. Some adopt sophisticated methods while others do it in crude ways. Both are equally guilty of contempt of court arid the courts will act wisely to bring them ail to book. There 1$ no other way to stop the rot and arrest the degeneration mat has set in the profession and in me administration of justice, let all concerned know that me legal profession is a service profession and not a trade or business and the courts of law are not shopping centers. The administration of justice, if it is to command respect and confidence, must be kept pure at all costs." Any advocate making any false allegations against judicial officers or judges is prima facie guilty of a misconduct. 67. In the case of M.B. Sangi, referred to supra, it was held that veiled threats, abrasive behaviour, use of disrespectful language and at times blatant condemnatory attacks are often designedly employed with a view to taming a judge into submission to secure a desired order. 67. In the case of M.B. Sangi, referred to supra, it was held that veiled threats, abrasive behaviour, use of disrespectful language and at times blatant condemnatory attacks are often designedly employed with a view to taming a judge into submission to secure a desired order. The foundation of our system which is based on the independence and impartiality of those who man it will be shaken if disparaging and derogatory remarks are made against the Presiding Judicial Officers with impunity. 68. From the contents of the affidavits filed by and on behalf of applicant/respondent No. 1 it is evident that first respondent had invited Manjunath. J, to the temple and after the pooja as per custom he was presented with a photo frame of the temple deity and prasadam. The photographs were taken on such occasions and the same has been sent in the name of the appellant by courier. While referring to the newspaper reporting of the court proceedings dated 10.7.2009, It is stated in the affidavit filed by the applicants/respondent No. 1 that if the statements "attributed to have been made by Hon'ble Mr. Justtce K.L. Manjunath", "if correct" demonstrates prejudice against the first respondent. Therefore, the applicant is not even sure if the statement reported in the Press could be attributed to Manjunath. J, and if so whether they were correct. In fact the deponent Sri. Jai Chaitanya Das was personally present in court along with his counsel, Sri. S.A. Maruti Prasad and Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathi, Senior Counsel, who participated in the proceedings on 10.7.2009 and expressed full confidence in the Bench hearing the matter. Despite this the application has been filed, while at the same time contending that on 10.7.2009 when Manjunath. J, raised the issue of the courier with photographs, Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathi, Senior Counsel instantly reacted that the court should ignore the said courier and photographs and proceed with further hearing of the appeal, which clearly indicated full confidence, trust and faith of the applicant/respondent No. 1 in the court. If that was the instant reaction on the part of the counsel for the applicant/respondent No. 1 on 10.7.2009, we fail to understand as to how the said counsel could have filed the application attributing bias against Manjunath. J, on the basis of the newspaper reports of 11.7.2009. According to the deponent "the apprehension of the respondent No. 1 that the Hon'ble Mr. J, on the basis of the newspaper reports of 11.7.2009. According to the deponent "the apprehension of the respondent No. 1 that the Hon'ble Mr. Justtce K.L. Manjunath is having bias and prejudice against the respondent No. 1 has started only on the reading of the newspaper on 11.7.2009..." While stating so, it was also stated that respondent No. 1 had expressed full confidence in the court on 10.7.2009 through their counsel. If the counsel for respondent No. 1 had expressed confidence in the Bench hearing the matter, then we fail to understand as to how the very same counsel could have drafted and filed an application that Manjunath J, should rescue himself from hearing the appeal, while the deponent claims innocence and bonafides on the basis of the statement made by the Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 1 on 10.7.2009 to ignore the letter and photographs and to proceed to hear the matter. Nevertheless the application has been filed alleging bias on the part of the Manjunath. J. 69. Under the circumstances we are of the considered view that this is a fit case where suo motu contempt action has to be initiated against Sri. Jai Chaitanya Dasa @ Jainarayan K, S/o. Mr. K.C.D. Nambisan, Aged 42 years, Secretary of respondent No. 1, Madhu Pandit Das, President of respondent No. 1, Sri. S.K.V Chalapthi, Senior counsel, Sri. V.H. Ron (Lex Plaxus), Sri. Ramesh Babu and Sri. S.A. Maruti Prasad, Advocates. 70. Office is directed to register the contempt proceedings in this regard and place the matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for posting. 71. As far as the order passed by Kumaraswamy J, on 7.8.2009 is concerned, we are of the view that it was the opinion of his Lordship that it was a case of a Judge being defamed and not one affecting the administration of justice. However, we have taken the view that the entire controversy is one affecting the administration of justice and the allegations are prima facie contemptuous within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. The pleadings filed by the applicant and also the affidavits of the applicant/respondent No. 1 are prima facie contumacious. However, we have taken the view that the entire controversy is one affecting the administration of justice and the allegations are prima facie contemptuous within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. The pleadings filed by the applicant and also the affidavits of the applicant/respondent No. 1 are prima facie contumacious. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant when specifically asked about the basis for the application, he submitted that It is not only the order dated 10.7.2009, the newspaper reports dated 11.7.2009, the affidavits filed in this case as well as on the instructions of the counsel that he is raising the plea of bias. Scandalising the Judges or courts tends to bring the authority and administration of law into disrespect and disregard and tantamounts to contempt. All acts which bring the court into disrepute or disrespect or which offend its dignity or its majesty or challenge its authority, constitute contempt committed in respect of single Judge or single court or in certain circumstances committed in respect of the whole of the judiciary or judicial system. Hence, we are constrained to issue the above direction while dismissing the application under consideration. 72. Before parting with this case, it would be apposite to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and Another, AIR 1977 SC 2421 which arose from this Court. Though the case arose in the context of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, what is relevant for the purpose of this case is the fact that the counsel for the petitioner who appeared before this Court had submitted that Venkataramiah J, (as he then was) should not hear the matter on the pretext that the petitioner had mentioned the name of the said Judge in the affidavit while describing the prior proceedings. The Supreme Court noted that the unhappy Judge adjourned the case to the next day and after spending a sleepless night the Judge heard the arguments without yielding to the bullying tactics of the petitioner and impropriety of his advocate and went into the merits and dismissed the revision petition. The Supreme Court noted as follows in the said case: We regret the infliction of the ordeal upon the learned Judge of the High Court by a callous party. The Supreme Court noted as follows in the said case: We regret the infliction of the ordeal upon the learned Judge of the High Court by a callous party. We more than regret the circumstance that the party concerned has been able to prevail upon one lawyer or the other to present to the court a case which was disingenuous or worse. 73. The said learned Judge of this Court as a Judge of the Apex Court in the case of S.P. Gupta Vs. President of India and Others, AIR 1982 SC 149 after referring to a Sanskrit sloka, observed as follows: Let men trained in ethics or morality, insult or praise; let lakshmi (wealth) accumulate or vanish as she likes; let death come today itself or at the end of a yuga (millenium), men with discretion will not deflect from the path of rectitude. 74. This country has always had great Judges and will continue to have men and women of learning and high reputation, as Judges. This Court cannot simply dismiss the application on merits and ignore the unsavory controversy that has been generated in this appeal, culminating in the filing of the application and the lengthy arguments addressed for allowing the said application. Hence, we have been constrained to issue the aforesaid direction, while dismissing the application. 75. In view of this order and being conscious of our limitations we direct the Registry to post the contempt proceeding as well as this appeal before a bench of which Manjunath J, and Nagarathna. J, are not members, after obtaining necessary orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice. 76. The photograph of Lord Krishna presented to Manjunath J, sometime in the year 2003 as well as the courier and two letters of Sri. Shekhar Shetty & S.V. Srinivasan, Advocates sent to Manjunath J, are placed on record as the same are handed over by him and would be the part of the record and the same shall be in safe custody. K.L. Manjunath, J. 1. Misc. Petition filed by R-1 requesting me not to hear this appeal was heard by me and my Sister Nagarathna J. on 18.8.2009 and prior to that matter was listed before other companion Judges. Therefore, certain events which were taken place prior to 18.8.2009 are required to be brought on record considering the background of this case. 2. Misc. Petition filed by R-1 requesting me not to hear this appeal was heard by me and my Sister Nagarathna J. on 18.8.2009 and prior to that matter was listed before other companion Judges. Therefore, certain events which were taken place prior to 18.8.2009 are required to be brought on record considering the background of this case. 2. This matter was heard by me along with my Brother Kumaraswamy J. on 2.7.2009. Thereafter the matter was adjourned for further arguments. After the case was adjourned on 2.7.2009 a courier was received by my Private Secretary and a similar courier was also received by my Brother Kumaraswamy J. The contents of the courier is extracted by us in our order in detail. Immediately after the receipt of the courier, on the next day itself myself and my Brother Kumaraswamy J. met His Lordship Chief Justice and showed the contents of the courier received by us and I personally requested His Lordship Chief Justice to post the matter before any other Bench in view of the false allegations made against me. However, His Lordship Chief Justice reposing confidence in me said that the matter has to be heard by us. Even thereafter I made a request to His Lordship to post the matter before any other Bench. However, I sought permission to hear the matter only to find out the persons who are behind in sending the courier to avoid my Bench and to bring bad reputation to me and I also informed His Lordship Chief Justice that the records would be sent back to him to place before any other Bench after finding out the persons who are involved in sending such courier. 3. In the courier sent to me and to my Brother Kumaraswamy J. it is stated that contents of the courier has also been sent to Hon'ble Chief Justice of India and His Companion Judges, Hon'ble Chief Justice of Karnataka and to the fourth estate. 4. It was revealed to us by His Lordship Chief Justice that such a cover has not been sent to him. Thereafter the matter was listed before the court on 10.7.2009 only to find out the persons who have indulged in sending such a courier to bring a bad name to me. On 10.7.2009 when Mr. 4. It was revealed to us by His Lordship Chief Justice that such a cover has not been sent to him. Thereafter the matter was listed before the court on 10.7.2009 only to find out the persons who have indulged in sending such a courier to bring a bad name to me. On 10.7.2009 when Mr. Udaya Holla started his arguments I stopped him for a while and informed about the receipt of the courier. Before the contents in the cover could be made known to the counsel for the parties Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent without even knowing the contents of the cover immediately submitted that I should ignore the contents of the courier and that his client has got full confidence in the court, which only indicate? that it was known to Mr. Chalapathi what was in the cover. But Mr. Holla said that his clients are no way responsible and they have not indulged and that he is also having full confidence in the court. Though the cover is said to have been sent to the Hon'ble Chief Justice and companion Judges and the Press, I believe that such covers are not sent to any one of them except to me and to my Brother Kumaraswamy J. If really such courier had been sent to the press, then the press would have published the same considering the background of this case at least after 10.7.2009. Matter was adjourned to 17.7.2009 directing both the parties to file affidavits. On 17.7.2009 senior counsel Mr. Mathai M. Paikeday who appeared for R-1 for the first time in the case opened his arguments with an opening sentence that I should rescue myself from hearing the appeal by producing the recent judgment of the Supreme Court where His Lordship Justice Markandey Katju in R.P.(C) No. 999/2009 in SLP No. 5939/2009 had rescue himself from hearing the matter and at his request matter was adjourned to 31.7.2009. 5. In the mean while, two letters were received by me one by Sri. S. Shekhar Shetty, Advocate and another from Sri. S.V. Srinivasan. These two advocates alone are disabled to appear before me. It is mentioned in the letter of Mr. S.S. Shekhar Shetty that Mr. Ramesh Babu colleague of Sri. 5. In the mean while, two letters were received by me one by Sri. S. Shekhar Shetty, Advocate and another from Sri. S.V. Srinivasan. These two advocates alone are disabled to appear before me. It is mentioned in the letter of Mr. S.S. Shekhar Shetty that Mr. Ramesh Babu colleague of Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathy had approached him earlier requesting him to file power for R-1 and that such a request was further made by him even after the parties were directed to file affidavit. Similarly, in the letter of Sri. S.V. Srinivasan it is mentioned that Sri. Maruti Prasad had approached him to file vakalat on behalf of R-1 on an earlier occasion. After the receipt of these two letters, to put an end to all the unpleasantness, contents of the letters were shown to Sri. S.K.V. Chalapathy and Mr. Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel for both the parties. After reading the contents of the letters, Mr. Chalapathy requested me not to note down the contents of these two letters in the order-sheet and sought time by one week. Then also it was informed by me that matter would be closed if really an attempt is made to avoid my Bench provided an unconditional apology is tendered by the learned Counsel whose names are referred to in the letters of Sri. S. Shekhar Shetty and Sri. S.V. Srinivasan. When the contents of the letters were revealed to the learned Counsel, both Mr. Ramesh Babu and Mr. Maruthi Prasad were present in the Court Hall. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 7.8.2009. 6. On 7.8.2009 Mr. S.K.V. Chalapaqthy submitted that Mr. Ramesh Babu and Mr. Maruthi Prasad had not approached Mr. Shekhar Shetty and Mr. S.V. Srinivasan respectively. In the circumstances, a direction was issued to Mr. Ramesh Babu and Mr. Maruthi Prasad to file their affidavits and court also suggested that Mr. Chalapathy may receive copies of these two letters in the open court to enable Mr. Maruthi Prasad and Mr. Ramesh Babu to file their affidavits. Mr. Chalapathy informed the court that they would collect the copies of the letters later. On that day Mr. Ramesh Babu was present and not Mr. Maruthi Prasad. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 11.8.2009. Chalapathy may receive copies of these two letters in the open court to enable Mr. Maruthi Prasad and Mr. Ramesh Babu to file their affidavits. Mr. Chalapathy informed the court that they would collect the copies of the letters later. On that day Mr. Ramesh Babu was present and not Mr. Maruthi Prasad. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 11.8.2009. After the dictation was over, my Brother Kumaraswamy J. sitting as a Companion Judge has passed a separate order which reads as hereunder: Heard the dictation of my brother His Lordship Sri. K.L. Manjunath. If a Judge is defamed in such a way as not to affect the administration of justice he has the ordinary remedies for defamation. It is of fundamental importance that Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. Therefore, in this background, post this matter before a Bench of which Justice C.R. Kumaraswamy is not a Member after obtaining necessary orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice. In the circumstances, place this matter before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for necessary orders. 7. It is unfortunate that a companion Judge who was well aware of the fact that we were hearing the parties only to find out the persons responsible in sending the courier to avoid the Bench has passed an order as if parties had defamed a Judge and that he should resort to an ordinary civil suit. In the interest of the judiciary I feel it may not be proper for me to comment about the order passed by my Companion Judge. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 11.8.2009. 8. On 11.8.2009 at the request of the counsel for R-1 matter was adjourned to 18.8.2009. In the mean while, in view of the orders passed by my Brother Kumaraswamy J. matter was posted before the Chief Justice and His Lordship again directed the matter to be heard by the Bench headed by me. 9. Though there was ample opportunity for Mr. Ramesh Babu and Mr. Maruthi Prasad to collect the copies of the letters in the open court and when the same was offered by the court in the open court without collecting the same at the time of hearing the application filed by R-1, they filed a memo stating that they may be furnished copies of the letters. Ramesh Babu and Mr. Maruthi Prasad to collect the copies of the letters in the open court and when the same was offered by the court in the open court without collecting the same at the time of hearing the application filed by R-1, they filed a memo stating that they may be furnished copies of the letters. There are no reasons for the two Senior Members of the Bar Mr. Shekhar Shetty and Mr. S.V. Srinivasan to address letters to me about Mr. Ramesh Babu approaching Mr. Shekhar Shetty and Mr. Maruthi Prasad approaching Mr. S.V. Srinivasan requesting them to file vakalat for R-1. At the time of hearing Mr. Mathai, learned senior counsel made a submission in the open court that he is arguing the matter in regard to the bias against me on the instructions of the Senior Counsel Mr. Chalapathy and Mr. Ron who is an advocate on record. Though they were present in the court hall when such a submission was made by Mr. Mathai, they did not deny the same. From the conduct of the counsel for the parties and in view of the letters written by Mr. Shekhar Shetty and Mr S.V. Srinivasan, I am of the prima facie view that a concerted effort has been made to avoid my Bench even prior to the commencement of the arguments and subsequently. 10. Since Mr. Mathai learned senior counsel appearing for R-1 mainly contends that his clients have entertained a doubt after reading news items appeared on 11.7.2009 in regard to me stopped visiting ISCKON Temple, why I stopped visiting ISCKON temple from 2003 onwards was also got clarified with Mr. Maruthi Prasad who was present in the Court Hall and I made it very clear that I stopped visiting ISCKON temple since I was not getting devotion considering the appearance of the statue of the deity and not for any other reason, therefore bias alleged against me on account of the paper reporting was clarified and it was also open for R-1 and its counsel to withdraw the application at least after hearing the clarification from Mr. Maruthi Prasad who is also assisting R-1, reasons for stopping visiting ISCKON temple. 11. After the arguments were concluded by Mr. Mathai and Mr. Maruthi Prasad who is also assisting R-1, reasons for stopping visiting ISCKON temple. 11. After the arguments were concluded by Mr. Mathai and Mr. Holla in the open court, I disclosed that even before the matter is placed before the court on 10.7.2009 I had brought to the notice of His Lordship Chief Justice requesting him to post the matter before any other Bench and further made known to the counsel for the parties that I was hearing along with my Brother Kumaraswamy J. only to find out the persons who are indulged in sending the photo to blackmail me. Even then also Mr. S.K.V. Chalapathi and Mr. Ron or Mr. Maruthi Prasad or Mr. Ramesh Babu or Mr. Mathai did not venture to withdraw the application filed by R-1 to rescue from hearing the appeal. 12. In T. Arivandandam Vs. T.V. Satyapal and Another, AIR 1977 SC 2421 the Apex Court have referred to the agony of Mr. Justice Venkataramayya (as he then was): "I spent a sleepless night yesterday". In the said case, Venkataramayya J. has spent sleepless night for a day, for me it is for several weeks. What has happened to me in the present case shall not happen to any other Judge. It is the duty and obligation of the counsel for the parties to uphold the dignity of this institution and to avoid scandalizing the Judges for no fault of a Judge. 13. In this background I am of the view that a sincere attempt is made only tarnish my image and reputation to achieve their ends.