TOBIAS TIEWDOP, SECRETARY OF SHELLA VILLAGE DORBAR Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Tobias Tiewdop, Secretary Of Shella Village Dorbar
State Of Meghalaya And Ors
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Heard Mr. K.Paul. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr. B.B.Nazary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) In the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14- 5-2013 passed by the District Council Court, Khasi Hills District in MCA No. 5 of 2013, the Presiding Officer himself had been impleaded as party and some allegations had also been made against the Senior counsel i.e. Mr. H.S.Thangkhiew, who was appearing in another case not actually related with this case in the amongst other grounds for filing revision petition which read as follows:
"(i) For that the Respondent No.3 failed to appreciate that having engaged Mr. H.S.Thangkhiew, Learned Senior Advocate as his Counsel it was incumbent on his part to recues himself from all proceedings where Mr. H.S.Thangkhiew had appeared for either parties as he once having engaged the Learned Senior Advocate as his Counsel it was but natural for him to be bias and that being the case the Respondent No.3 by not recusing himself and proceeding to dismiss the Appeal has acted with patent malafide and against all judicial norms and judicial propriety. As such the impugned Order dated 14.5.13 being perverse is liable to be quashed and set aside.
(ii) For that the Respondent No.3 failed to appreciate the settled position of law that non-observance of the Principal of Natural Justice vitiate any proceeding more particularly if it is a legal proceeding before a Court of Law and the only reasonable likelihood of bias is good enough for drawing an inference of non-observance of the Principle of Natural Justice Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa in the instant case. The Respondent No.3 having engaged the Learned Senior Advocate as his Counsel it is but apparent that he was acting on the bases of the advice given by the Learned Senior Advocate and as such propriety demanded that the Respondent No.3 recuse himself from all the proceedings where Mr. H.S.Thangkhiew had appeared at any point of time or represented either of the parties. As such the impugned Order dated 14.5.13 being bad in law is liable to be quashed and set aside."
(3.) Shri H.S.Thangkhiew, Senior Advocate had been asked to file his affidavit in reply to the allegations made in the revision petition; and accordingly filed his affidavit. The para No. 5 of the affidavit read as follows:
"5. That deponent states that only because the deponent at one point of time appeared for the Judge, District Council Court before the High Court, it does not operate as a bar for the Judge, District Council Court to take up any matter where the deponent is or was one of the counsels that too not before the same Court but before the Hon'ble High Court. This also does not operate as a bar for the deponent to appear before the Judge, District Council Court, especially when the subject matter of the case is entirely different and the case in hand is not even remotely connected to the case in which the deponent appeared for the Judge, District Council Court.";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.