V.S.AGGARWAL, J. - (1.) SOME concepts of legal jurisprudence are of perennial interest. Discussion about these is always refreshing. The rule about "natural justice" is one such concept. It's basic tenets are impartial adjudication and fair hearing. The above -mentioned two principles of natural justice viz., "Audi Alteram Partem" and "Nemo Judex In Causa Sua Protest" have been used in common law. The first is used to denote the principle that both sides in a case must be heard. The second concept suggests that no one can be a judge of his own case. This precludes bias of any kind. In other words, it is necessary that his case is heard by a judge who is free from bias. Bias disqualifies an individual from acting an an adjudicator.
(2.) IN the case of A.K. Kraipack vs. Union of India 1969 (2) SCC 262 the Supreme Court observed, "The real question is not whether he was biased. It is difficult to prove the state of mind of a person. Therefore, what we have to see is whether there is reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to be biased -a mere suspicion of bias is not sufficient. There must be a reasonable likelihood of bias." Therefore, one can revert to the facts. Vipan Kumar Jain and Chander Deep Jain are two brothers (petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2). Mrs. Sneh Rani Jain, petitioner No. 3, is the wife of Vipan Kumar Jain while Mrs. Dolly Jain, petitioner No. 4, is the wife of Chander Deep Jain. Besides, M/s S.K. & Co. and M/s Classic Cutlery (India), petitioners Nos. 5 and 6 respectively, are the two partnership concerns of the abovesaid petitioners.
(3.) BY virtue of the present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India for declaring the search dt. 30th Sept., 1998, effected on the premises of the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and without jurisdiction and also declaring the Panchnamas dt. 30th Sept., 1998, prepared by Dr. Navaljit Kapoor, respondents No. 4, and Sh. Harinder Kumar, respondent No. 5, to be false and fabricated. It is also prayed that in the absence of any legal and valid service of a legal notice under S. 158BC(a) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), the assessment proceedings are void ab initio and mala fide. It is prayed that respondents should be directed to return the documents seized during the search. dt. 30th Sept., 1998, and further that the assessment proceedings pending with respondent No. 5 should be transferred. It is also lastly contended and prayed that the practice of appointing investigating officer of the search as assessing authority is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. The facts alleged are that petitioners No. 1 and 2 had entered into an agreement dt. 26th Sept., 1996, with one Banarsi Dass Vij and his wife Smt. Sheela Wati Vij, who were the shareholders of M/s B.D. Vij & Sons (P) Ltd. and running a Cinema Suraj at Panchkula. According to that agreement, the petitioners had agreed to purchase the land and the shares of Shri Banarsi Dass Vij and his wife, belonging to M/s B.D. Vij & Sons (P) Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 2.15 crores. The petitioners gave the details of the agreement and the payments made with which we are not presently concerned.;