JUDGMENT : DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:- 1. Contemnor No. 1 in CC 57 of 2012 has filed the present application seeking this Division Bench in seisin of CC 57 of 2012 to recuse from the hearing of such contempt rule as also the connected applications therein. 2. Learned advocate appearing for the contemnor No. 1 has submitted that, the Court on diverse dates made various observations in course of hearing of the contempt rule of the connected applications which gave rise to reasonable apprehension of bias. In support of such contention, learned advocate appearing for the contemnor No. 1 has referred a written notes of arguments submitted in Court and in particular sentences claimed to be spoken on June 27, 2024, July 16, 2024, July 23, 2024, August 1, 2024, August 20, 2024, August 29, 2024, September 19, 2024, November 19, 2024, December 17, 2024. 3. Learned advocate appearing for the contemnor No. 1 has relied upon 1998 Volume 5 Supreme Court Cases 513 (State of West Bengal and Others vs. Shivananda Pathak and Others) in support of the contention that, bias may be defined as a pre-conceived opinion or a pre-disposition or pre-determination to decide a case or an issue in a particular manner, so much so that such disposition does not rule the mind upon the conviction. 4. We had by an order dated November 19, 2024 passed in presence of the parties, requested the learned Advocate General to appear in the contempt rule. 5. Learned Advocate General has submitted that, a prayer for recusal should be considered from the perspective of the person making such an application. He has pointed out that, the person making the application must bring some material on record to suggest, if not establish that, the Court in seisin of a proceeding has any pecuniary interest in the outcome of the lis or the Court has interest in the case or the Court has interest in the cause. He has contended that, taking the allegations levelled by the contemnor No. 1 to be true and correct, then also, none of such grounds stand made out. It is not the case of the contemnor No. 1 that, the Court has any pecuniary interest in the outcome of the lis or has any interest in the case or in the cause. 6. It is not the case of the contemnor No. 1 that, the Court has any pecuniary interest in the outcome of the lis or has any interest in the case or in the cause. 6. Learned Advocate General has pointed out that, a Judge of a Constitutional Court is bound by the oath of Office. In particular, he has referred to the fact that, a Judge of a Constitutional Court is required to deliver justice without fear or favour. He has contended that, should a Judge recuse from a case at the instance of a litigant who perceives observations made by the Court during hearing not to be favourable to such litigant, then, administration of justice will fail. The Judge would be failing to act true to the Oath of his Office. He has contended that, observations made by the Court are not to be construed as final decision of the Court. The final decision appears from the orders or judgments passed by the Court. 7. Learned Advocate General has relied upon 2016 Volume 5 Supreme Court Cases 808 (Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Associations and Another vs. Union of India (Recusal Matter)) in support of his contentions. 8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner in the contempt rule has contended that, the Court is yet to arrive at a final decision in the contempt rule. He has pointed out that, Court has taken a decision to issue contempt rule by the judgment and order dated August 1, 2024. Such judgment and order had been assailed before the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition which was disposed of by an order dated August 14, 2024. 9. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner in the contempt rule has contended that, observations made in course of hearing of an ongoing matter cannot be construed to mean that, the Court is biased. In support of such contention, he has relied upon 2009 Volume 8 Supreme Court Cases 106 (R.K.Anand vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court), 2014 Volume 8 Supreme Court Cases 470 (Subrata Roy Sahara vs. Union of India and Others) and 2020 Volume 6 Supreme Court Cases 304 (Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal and Others). 10. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner in the contempt rule has contended that, Shivananda Pathak and Others (supra) has been considered by the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority (supra). 11. 10. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner in the contempt rule has contended that, Shivananda Pathak and Others (supra) has been considered by the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority (supra). 11. Shivananda Pathak and Others (supra) has dealt with the issue as to whether ‘judicial obstinacy’ can be treated as a form of ‘bias’. As the first paragraph of such decision depicts, such issue has been answered in the peculiar facts involved in the case. In that case, a judgment and order of a Single Judge was overruled in appeal by a Division Bench and the same learned Single Judge sat in another Division Bench in a collateral proceedings between the same parties to re-write the overruled judgment. In such context, Supreme Court has held that, the learned Single Judge writing the first judgment should have dissociated himself from the second Division Bench as his earlier judgment and direction had been overruled. 12. R. K. Anand (supra) amongst the issues raised therein, has considered a request for recusal made before the High Court. Supreme Court in that case has noted that such tendencies and practices seeking recusal of the Court, perceived to be unfavourable to a litigant, are on the rise. Supreme Court has held as follows:- 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 defenseless 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. 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. 13. Subrata Roy Sahara (supra) has dealt with the issue of request for recusal made to a Court. It has held that, a demand for recusal on baseless and unfounded insinuations, calculated psychological offences and mind games need to be strongly repulsed. 13. Subrata Roy Sahara (supra) has dealt with the issue of request for recusal made to a Court. It has held that, a demand for recusal on baseless and unfounded insinuations, calculated psychological offences and mind games need to be strongly repulsed. Supreme Court has deprecated such tactics and commended such an approach to other courts when they experience such behaviour. It has held that any act of Bench hunting or Bench hopping or Bench avoiding cannot be allowed. A Judge must not recuse from the matter unless the Judge should not be hearing it for reasons of direct or indirect involvement. It has laid down that even in the fact of calculated psychological offences and mind games Oath of Office of a Judge to decide every case without fear or favour requires the Judge concerned to press on with the hearing of the matter and bear the brunt of the rhetoric of the counsel or party seeking to dissuade the Court from hearing the matter. 14. Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Associations and Another (supra) has summarized the principles of recusal when warranted. It has held as follows:- “25. From the above decisions, in our opinion, the following principles emerge: 25.1 If a Judge has financial interest in the outcome of a case, he is automatically disqualified from hearing the case. 25.2 In cases where the interest of the Judge in the case is other than financial, then the disqualification is not automatic but an enquiry is required whether the existence of such an interest disqualifies the Judge tested in the light of either on the principle of “real danger” or “reasonable apprehension” of bias. 25.3 The Pinochet case added a new category i.e. that the Judge is automatically disqualified from hearing a case where the Judge is interested in a cause which is being promoted by one of the parties to the case.” 15. Indore Development Authority (supra) has held that, holding a particular view by a Judge on legal issue for or against a litigating party in previous judgment is no ground for disqualifying the Judge from being part of Larger Bench on mere asking for recusal. Indore Development Authority (supra) has held that, holding a particular view by a Judge on legal issue for or against a litigating party in previous judgment is no ground for disqualifying the Judge from being part of Larger Bench on mere asking for recusal. It has also noted that consequences of Court allowing parties prayer for recusal of a Judge would amount to permitting parties to choose Benches to their liking which would open flood gates for forum shopping and Bench hunting and would destroy the very edifice of independent judicial system. 16. Petitioner has instituted the contempt proceeding alleging that the respondents violated orders dated June 17, 2004 passed in CC 113 of 2004 and CC 114 of 2004. Petitioner has sought to invoke the criminal contempt jurisdiction on the allegation that the subject property was a part of a Terms of Settlement filed in a civil suit. In such civil suit party joint receivers had been appointed by the order dated January 19, 2004. Such joint receivers had taken possession of the subject property on June 20, 2004. Contemnor No. 1 had sold such property to contemnor nos. 2, 3 and 4 in violation of orders of Court and disturbed the possession of the joint receivers. 17. Co-ordinate Bench had by an order dated June 2, 2012 called upon the contemnor herein to show cause as to why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. Contemnors had filed affidavits pursuant thereto. 18. This Bench has heard the contempt petition from time to time. Prior to the judgment and the order dated August 1, 2024 passed herein directing issuance of Rule as against the contemnors, there was no allegation of bias against the Bench. Contemnor No. 1 who has made the present application, had filed a Special Leave Petition against such judgment and order dated August 1, 2024 which was disposed of by an order dated August 14, 2024. The allegation of bias have surfaced thereafter. The present application has been made on September 18, 2024. 19. As has been noted above, request for recusal is on the basis of apprehension of bias of the Court as against contemnor No. 1. Authorities cited at the Bar have noted that there are many ways to discover bias. One of them is by evaluation facts and circumstances of the case. 19. As has been noted above, request for recusal is on the basis of apprehension of bias of the Court as against contemnor No. 1. Authorities cited at the Bar have noted that there are many ways to discover bias. One of them is by evaluation facts and circumstances of the case. Bias may be discovered by applying the test of real likelihood for bias or reasonable suspicion of bias. While reasonable suspicion test looks mainly to outward appearance, real likelihood tests focuses on the Courts on evaluation of probabilities. Real likelihood of bias has to be ascertained with reference to right minded person, that is, whether any right minded person would consider that there was real likelihood of bias. 20. A litigant in a proceeding may successfully apply for recusal of the Judge if the Judge has any financial interest in the outcome of the case or where the Judge is interested in a cause which is being promoted by one of the parties to the case or there exist any interest of the Judge in the case which disqualifies the Judge tested in the light of either of the principle of reasonable danger or reasonable apprehension of bias. 21. If the first two grounds are established then, the Judge is automatically disqualified. The third ground requires an enquiry. 22. It is not the allegation of the contemnor no. 1 that any of the first two grounds exist in the present case. In any event, contemnor No. 1 did not draw the attention of the Court to any material on record to suggest existence of any of the first two grounds. 23. Question therefore is whether the apprehension of bias expressed by the contemnor no. 1 is reasonable or there exist real danger of bias. 24. One of the subject matter of the determination/roaster of this Bench is assigned by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice is “contempt applications and review petitions (including applications connected thereto) of the Division Bench, Hon’ble Judges whereof are not available due to death, retirement or transfer/elevation”. 25. CC 57 of 2012 appeared in the list of this Court in the Original Side pursuant to such determination as filed by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice. It was taken up for the first time by this Court on December 7, 2023 although the matter was appearing prior thereto. 25. CC 57 of 2012 appeared in the list of this Court in the Original Side pursuant to such determination as filed by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice. It was taken up for the first time by this Court on December 7, 2023 although the matter was appearing prior thereto. Noticing that there was an effort for mediation undertaken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, petitioner was requested to inform the Court as to its status. 26. Contempt petition was taken up for consideration on January 9, 2024 and after noticing that, the status quo order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not exist any longer, petitioner was requested to issue fresh notice upon the alleged contemnors and their advocate and to file an affidavit-of-service to such effect on the next day. The contempt petition was directed to be listed on February 8, 2024. 27. On February 13, 2024, petitioner and the contemnor No. 1 were represented. It was submitted at the Bar that there was no stay of the proceedings. However, noticing that a portion of our order dated January 9, 2024 remained uncomplied with, we dismissed CC 57 of 2012. 28. On a recalling application filed by the petitioner being IA GA No. 1 of 2024, in presence of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 opportunity to file affidavits were given. 29. On March 5, 2025, we required the petitioner to serve a copy of the application for recalling upon the non-appearing respondents and file an affidavit-of-service to such effect of such date. Such order was again passed in presence of the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. 30. On April 18, 2024, after considering the rival contentions in presence of the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 we allowed IA GA 1 of 2024 and directed listing of the contempt petition on June 18, 2024. Prayer for adjournment made on behalf of the petitioner was allowed on June 13, 2024 and the contempt petition was directed to be listed on June 25, 2024. On June 30, 2024, petitioner, contemnor No. 1 and contemnor Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were represented by advocates. 31. Prayer for adjournment made on behalf of the contemnors was considered and allowed on June 27, 2024. Such order was passed in presence of the petitioner and all the contemnors. 32. On June 30, 2024, petitioner, contemnor No. 1 and contemnor Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were represented by advocates. 31. Prayer for adjournment made on behalf of the contemnors was considered and allowed on June 27, 2024. Such order was passed in presence of the petitioner and all the contemnors. 32. Hearing of the contempt petition commenced on the issue as to whether Rule should be issued or not. Such hearing took place in presence of the petitioner and all the contemnors. Since hearing of all the parties were not concluded, the contempt petition was listed on July 23, 2024. 33. On July 24, 2024, hearing on such issue was concluded in presence of the petitioner and all the contemnors. 34. Contemnor No. 1 made an application being GA No. 2 of 2024 by which, contemnor No. 1 sought stay of further proceedings of CC 57 of 2012. An opportunity to file the affidavits therein was granted to the parties. 35. By a judgment and order dated August 1, 2024 we decided to issue criminal Rule of contempt against the contemnors. Such Rule was made returnable on August 20, 2024. 36. Contemnor No. 1 preferred a Special Leave Petitioner being Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s) 18239 of 2024 against the judgment and order dated August 1, 2024. Such Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the order dated August 14, 2024. 37. Contempt Rule was taken up for consideration on August 20, 2024 in presence of the parties. Contemnors were represented by their learned advocates. An order for protection and preservation of the subject property was passed. We declined to grant stay of the contempt proceedings as prayed for in IA GA No. 2 of 2024 which was disposed of. Another application being IA GA 3 of 2024 made by the contemnor No. 1 seeking clarification of the judgment and order dated August 1, 2024 was dismissed. 38. Contempt Rule was taken up for consideration on August 22, 2024. Typographical errors in the order dated August 20, 2024 were directed to be corrected. After noting the physical presence of the contemnors in Court, on their prayers, appearance of the contemnors in Court was dispensed with upon their undertaking to be present in Court as and when directed. Contempt Rule was directed to be listed on September 19, 2024. 39. Typographical errors in the order dated August 20, 2024 were directed to be corrected. After noting the physical presence of the contemnors in Court, on their prayers, appearance of the contemnors in Court was dispensed with upon their undertaking to be present in Court as and when directed. Contempt Rule was directed to be listed on September 19, 2024. 39. CC 57 of 2012 was taken up for consideration on August 29, 2024, when, application of the contemnor No. 1 being IA GA 4 of 2024 seeking records relating to the assignment of the contempt applications, was taken up for consideration. Directions for affidavits were given. Order was passed in presence of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and the contemnor No. 1. 40. The contempt petition was thereafter taken up for consideration on September 19, 2024 when, by GA 5 of 2024, contemnor No. 1 sought recusal of the Bench on the ground of bias. Parties were permitted to file affidavits. Orders were passed in presence of the learned advocate for the contemnors. 41. CC 57 of 2012 appeared in the list on November 19, 2024, when contemnor No. 1 filed an application being IA GA 6 of 2024 claiming that the petitioner in the contempt petition is guilty of perjury. Directions for affidavits was granted. Learned Advocate General was requested to assist the Court. Order was passed in presence of the petitioner and the contemnor No. 1. 42. Contempt petition along with pending applications were taken up for consideration on December 17, 2024. Time to file affidavits in GA 6 of 2024 was extended. Contemnor No. 1 filed GA 7 of 2024 requiring the video recording of the proceedings. Such application was disposed of after holding that, such video recording of the contempt proceedings were not made. 43. Contempt petition was thereafter taken up for consideration on January 15, 2024, when, the hearing of GA 5 of 2024 was concluded and the judgment was reserved. 44. Till the date of the judgment and order dated August 1, 2024 by which, we decided to issue contempt rule, against the contemnor No. 1, the contempt petition was heard on various issues for 19 numbers of days. Contemnor No. 1 was represented by advocates on all of those dates save and except the first two days. 45. 44. Till the date of the judgment and order dated August 1, 2024 by which, we decided to issue contempt rule, against the contemnor No. 1, the contempt petition was heard on various issues for 19 numbers of days. Contemnor No. 1 was represented by advocates on all of those dates save and except the first two days. 45. Video conference facilities are available to the High Court at Calcutta including this Bench. We have taken assistance of the Department to find out the dates on which, the contemnor No. 1 logged into the video conferencing platform of this Court. The contemnor No. 1 was on the video conferencing platform on and from December 4, 2023. Although, the contemnor No. 1 was not represented by an advocate on December 4, 2023, December 7, 2023 and January 9, 2024 nonetheless, he was on the video conferencing platform on such dates. In those dates, he did not respond when the matter was taken up for consideration. He was keeping a watch of the proceedings. 46. Contemnor No. 1 logged into the video conferencing platform on February 8, 2024, February 20, 2024, June 13, 2024, June 25, 2024, June 27, 2024, July 16, 2024, July 23, 2024, August 20, 2024, August 22, 2024, August 29, 2024, September 19, 2024, November 19, 2024 and December 17, 2024. 47. Allegation of bias made in GA 5 of 2024 was filed on September 18, 2024. Allegations of bias relate to alleged observations made by the Court on June 26, 2024 onwards. 48. Prior to GA 5 of 2025 being filed, contemnor No. 1 did not bring to the notice of the Court that the Court was biased as against him. It is subsequent to the issuance of the Rule on August 1, 2024 and the Special Leave Petition directed against such judgment and order being dismissed on August 14, 2024 that the allegations surfaced. Going by the statement of the contemnor No. 1, bias of the Court did not exist for the period between December 7, 2023 till June 13, 2024. Between those dates 7 dates or hearing took place. Allegation of bias made is with effect from the date of June 27, 2024, that is when the contempt petition was taken up for final hearing in order to decide whether, a Rule was required to be issued as against the contemnor No. 1 or not. Between those dates 7 dates or hearing took place. Allegation of bias made is with effect from the date of June 27, 2024, that is when the contempt petition was taken up for final hearing in order to decide whether, a Rule was required to be issued as against the contemnor No. 1 or not. Significantly till the moving of the present application on September 19, 2024 contemnor no. 1 made no allegations of bias in Court. Between June 27, 2024 and September 19, 2024, both including contempt petition was heard on 9 days. 49. Attribute of biasness by the contemnor No. 1 is directed towards alleged observations made on June 27, 2024, August 20, 2024, August 29, 2024, September 19, 2024, December 17, 2024. None of the allegations appears from any of such orders. None of the orders passed on such dates contain any word which can be construed to express any bias in favour or against any party to the proceedings. Matters were taken up on the dates and considerable time of the Court was consumed in most of those days. Contemnor No. 1 is trying to pick out a part of a sentence or a sentence entirely out of context and that too wrong quoting the engagement, in order to give a twist to the engagement between the Court and the counsel with regard to the merits of the matter. 50. None of the allegations that have been made against the Court even remotely suggest any of the grounds enumerated in paragraph 25 of Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Associations and Another (supra) stand attracted. The entire attempt of the contemnor No. 1 is to create an atmosphere by which, a Court is made to recuse itself. The contemnor No. 1 has filed numbers of applications on one pretext or the other. He is trying to ensure by his antics that the decision on the main proceedings is postponed indefinitely. The proceedings are pending since 2012. 51. Contemnor No. 1 has referred to observations made in Court while hearing the proceedings, either by the Court or by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. We will not enter into the arena of whether the quotations highlighted by the contemnor No. 1 are true and correct or not. The proceedings are pending since 2012. 51. Contemnor No. 1 has referred to observations made in Court while hearing the proceedings, either by the Court or by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. We will not enter into the arena of whether the quotations highlighted by the contemnor No. 1 are true and correct or not. A portion of engagement between the learned counsel for the parties and the Court is highlighted and out of context to attempt assuaging the misconceived apprehension of bias, assuming the quotations are true and correct. 52. So far as the Court is concerned, contemnor No. 1 did not draw our attention to any material in any of our orders or judgments which discloses that the Court is proceeding with a pre-disposition with regard to the issues involved. Allegations of bias as against the Court is founded upon questions put to the learned counsels of the parties in course of hearing or conversations had. It cannot be said that, the Court cannot put questions or engage in a conversation with any of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. In course of submissions at the hearing of the present application, one of the grievances of the learned counsel appearing for the contemnor No. 1 is that, on one particular occasion, Court did not look at him for the same period of time as the Court looked at the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 53. In view of the ratio of R. K. Anand (supra), Subrata Roy Sahara (supra), Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Associations and Another (supra), Indore Development Authority (supra) we have found no ground for recusal. 54. IA No: GA 5 of 2024 is dismissed. 55. I agree. LATER :- Learned advocate appearing for the contemnor no. 1 seeks stay of three weeks. Such prayer is considered and rejected.