JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. 1. All these four appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of the same award dated 31-01-2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala whereby the learned Tribunal held the claimants entitled to compensation but also held that only the owner of the offending vehicle bearing No. TRT-229, i.e. Nanda Gopal Roy (Saha), was liable to pay the compensation. 2. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the claimants in these appeals had earlier filed petitions seeking transfer of these cases from my Court to any other Judge of this High Court. These petitions were rejected vide order dated 25-07-2014 which reads as follows:- "When these matters were taken up for hearing, it was brought to my notice that the claimants have filed applications under section 24 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) praying for transfer of the aforesaid cases to any other Judge of this High Court. 2. At the outset, I may note that section 24 does not apply to transfer of cases from one Bench of the High Court to another and basically by means of these applications purportedly filed on behalf of the claimants, they have sought that I should recuse from hearing the matters and list them before some other Judge of this Court. These applications are not signed by counsel for the parties but have been signed by the claimants. The relevant portion of the applications read as follows:- "1. That, the above named petitioner has learnt few days ago that Learned Counsel of the petitioner has filed a letter to the Hon'ble President of India against some assertion against your Lordship i.e. Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Deepak Gupta of High Court Tripura, as such the above named petitioner is afraid that she may not get proper justice from your Lordship in the above noted Memo of Appeal, as the Learned Counsel of petitioner is Mr. S.K. Datta, Advocate who is conducting the above noted case on behalf of the petitioner. 2. That, own choice lawyer of the petitioner is Mr. S.K. Datta and he has been conducting the case from the Learned Tribunal on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner intends that Mr. S.K. Datta Advocate will conducting the case of the petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court. 3. 2. That, own choice lawyer of the petitioner is Mr. S.K. Datta and he has been conducting the case from the Learned Tribunal on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner intends that Mr. S.K. Datta Advocate will conducting the case of the petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court. 3. That, for the reasons and circumstances narrated herein above the petitioner thinks that if the said case may be transferred to the Bench of any other Hon'ble Judge of this High Court, the petitioner will get proper justice." 3. The short issue is whether I should choose the easy path of recusing from the case or should I abide by the oath which every Judge takes on assuming office whereby he swears to discharge his duties duly and faithfully, to the best of his knowledge and judgment and perform his duties of office without fear or favour, affection or ill will while upholding the Constitution and the laws. 4. The dilemma which a Judge faces when confronted with such a situation has been best described by Hon'ble Justice Manmohan Sarin of the Delhi High Court in the Contempt Proceedings which were initiated against Sri R.K. Anand, a then Senior Advocate of the Delhi High Court. Sri R.K. Anand had filed an application that the Senior Judge of the Bench Hon'ble Justice Manmohan Sarin, as he then was, should recuse from hearing the case on the ground that he was personally hostile to Mr. R.K. Anand. It was alleged that when both Mr. R.K. Anand and Justice Manmohan Sarin were lawyers, they had many quarrels and verbal exchange of abuses. It was also mentioned that when Justice Manmohan Sarin, prior to his elevation, was Vice-President of the Delhi High Court Bar Association, he had moved a resolution before the Executive Committee of the Association opposing any proposal for the appointment of Sri R.K. Anand as Judge of the High Court of Delhi. Other allegations were also levelled. Justice Manmohan Sarin held as follows:- "The path of recusal is very often a convenient and a soft option. This is especially so since a Judge really has no vested interest in doing a particular matter. Other allegations were also levelled. Justice Manmohan Sarin held as follows:- "The path of recusal is very often a convenient and a soft option. This is especially so since a Judge really has no vested interest in doing a particular matter. However, the oath of office taken under Article 219 of the Constitution of India enjoins the Judge to duly and faithfully and to the best of his knowledge and judgment, perform the duties of office without fear or favour affection or ill will while upholding the constitution and the laws. In a case, where unfounded and motivated allegations of bias are sought to be made with a view of forum hunting/Bench preference or brow-beating the Court, then, succumbing to such a pressure would tantamount to not fulfilling the oath of office." 5. I am in total agreement with the aforesaid observations of Hon'ble Justice Sarin. If a Judge recuses from hearing a matter only because he wants to avoid a controversy, then he is not being true and faithful to the oath which he has subscribed to. 6. The Apex Court approved what was said by Justice Sarin and the observations of the Apex Court in R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106 ) are as follows:- "xxx xxx The above passage, in our view, correctly sums up what should be the Court's response in the face of a request for recusal made with the intent to intimidate the court or to get better of an "inconvenient" Judge or to obfuscate the issues or to cause obstruction and delay the proceedings or in any other way frustrate or obstruct the course of justice. 264. We are constrained to pause here for a moment and to express grave concern over the fact that lately such tendencies and practices are on the increase. We have come across instances where one would simply throw a stone on a Judge (who is quite defenceless in such matters!) and later on cite the gratuitous attack as a ground to ask the Judge to recuse himself from hearing a case in which he would be appearing. Such conduct is bound to cause deep hurt to the Judge concerned but what is of far greater importance is that it defies the very fundamentals of administration of justice. Such conduct is bound to cause deep hurt to the Judge concerned but what is of far greater importance is that it defies the very fundamentals of administration of justice. A motivated application for recusal, therefore, needs to be dealt with sternly and should be viewed ordinarily as interference in the due course of justice leading to penal consequences." 7. Recently in a judgment delivered on 06-05-2014, the Apex Court dealt with a similar issue where unfortunately some Senior Counsel asked Judges of the Apex Court to recuse from hearing the matter. This judgment was delivered in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and others, (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 57 of 2014 dated 06-05-2014). 8. Dealing with the issue as to whether they should hear the matter or not, the Apex Court held as follows:- "In our understanding, the oath of our office, required us to go ahead with the hearing. And not to be overawed by such submissions. In our view, not hearing the matter, would constitute an act in breach of our oath of office, which mandates us to perform the duties of our office, to the best of our ability, without fear or favour, affection or ill will." 9. Thereafter, the Apex Court has quoted with approval the observations of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan Sarin which have been quoted above. The Apex Court further went on to hold as follows:- "If it was learned counsel's posturing antics, aimed at bench-hunting or bench-hopping (or should we say, bench-avoiding), we would not allow that. Affronts, jibes and carefully and consciously planned snubs could not deter us, from discharging our onerous responsibility. We could at any time, during the course of hearing, walk out and make way, for another Bench to decide the matter, if ever we felt that, that would be the righteous course to follow." 10. This is the law which has been laid down by the Apex Court and no Judge of the High Court should recuse from hearing a matter unless he in his heart feels that he will be unable to deliver justice to the parties.