- (1.) In this writ petition no order of Court or Tribunal has been challenged and what has been prayed for is that the petitioner should not be dispossessed from 10 bighas of agricultural land, residential house, both situated in village Sikorri, Tehsil - Kumher, Distt. Bharatpur and the matters pending in the revenue Courts be transferred to any judicial/civil court. Originally, Shri Natthi Singh, the then Revenue Minister, Government of Rajasthan, was made a party-respondent to the writ petition, but since later on he ceased to be the Minister, an application has been filed that his name may be deleted from the array of the respondents. Before we proceed to dispose of this case at the admission stage, some facts relating to the events till today in respect of proceedings which took place in this writ petition may be stated.
(2.) Under order dated February 14. 1991, in the presence of Mr. S.L. Yadav, Advocate. Mr. M.1. Khan Addl. Advocated General, Mr. R.D. Rastogi and Mr. Biri Singh Advocates, Hon'ble Chief Justice had constituted this Bench to dispose of all the four cases. The four cases were other wise to be heard by the Single Bench. Besides this, It appears from the order of the Chief Justice that against request was made by the learned counsel for the parties and the Hon'ble Chief Justice on their join request has referred all the four cases, the present writ petition, as well as bail applications and Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for disposal to this Bench, Before making the aforesaid joint request before hon'ble Chief Justice in the Petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. (No. S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1436/1990 Devki Rani v. State of Rajasthan at page 18, para 29, the petitioner has prayed that ".... the hearing of the writ petition No. 3280/90 along with the above S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2526/90 and 3052/90 deserves to be heard by a Bench not constituted by Hon'ble S/Shri V.S. Dave J. and N.L. Tibrewal J. Under the aforesaid exceptional circumstances specially in the light of the allegations alleged in S.L.P. (Criminal) No. not Known/1990. In view of the above mentioned extremely exceptional facts and circumstances of the above mentioned case this in most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to..." Even when the case came up before this Bench of February 21, 1991, for the first time Mr. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner had not made a request that this case along with three other case should not be heard by a Bench to which one of us (M.B. Sharma J.) is a member, because the said Judge on earlier occasion made exception so far as the cases of S.L. Yaday. Advocate is concerned. On February 21, 1991 what was prayed by Mr. Yadav was that some S.L.P. has been filed in the Supreme Court and he was expecting some orders from the Supreme Court in that S.L.P. We, therefore, adjourned the case for a week to enable the petitioner to bring any order from the Supreme Court. The case then came up before us on March 5, 1991 on which date also Shri Yadav was present but he did not make any request that this case along with other three cases should not be heard to March 6, 1991 and it was ordered that the case will be taken up at 10.30 a.m. or after the order cases. The case then came up before us on March 6, 1991, and on that date instead of four cases, only three were shown in the cause list. On the request of the parties. the Reader was directed to get the fourth case listed in the supplementary cause list, but as the file was tagged with the other files which was not noticed, an attempt was made to trace the file, but since it could not be traced in the office as it was tagged with the other files, the Miscellaneous Petition could not be listed in the supplementary cause list. On march 6, 1991 Mr. Yadav made an objection that one of us (M.B. Sharma J.) should not hear his cases. Under a detailed order dated March 6, 1991, his request was declined and the order speaks for itself. If will be proper to state that Mr. Yadav could not dispute when it was brought to his notice that after the order dated November 27, 1989, was made by one of us (M.B. Sharma J.) in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1771/1989, that no exception in such cases of Mr. Yadav shall be made which have been decided by M.B. Sharma J. on earlier occasions, as such cases are to be disposed of by the same judges, in a murder Misc. Bail application bail was allowed to the petitioner represented by none-else but Shri Yaday. It was observed in that order, a part of which has been extracted in the order dated March 6, 1991 that it is on the request of Mr. Yadav that M.B. Sharma J. had made the exception though there were absolutely no valid reasons. But because Mr. Yadav made a request that his cases should not be heard by M.P. Sharma j. said exception was made. M.B. Sharma J. had granted bail in a case in which earlier some other advocate appeared but bail was rejected and later on Mr. Yadav appeared, the bail was granted. The cases are decided on merits. It appears to be modus operandi of Mr. Yadav that he tries to create circumstances in a Bench/Benches so that either at his request or otherwise exception of his cases is made. That is why there have been exceptions of few judges in cases of Shri Yaday. There are always such parties who know the views of a Judge in bails and other type of cases, may feel that it may not be possible to get a favourable order from a Bench of that Judge, They then engage the advocate in whose case reception has been made. This is misuse and is not a healthy practice. One of us (M.B. Sharma J.) now feels that no except of cases of Shri Yadav should be made and should have been made and therefore the order to that effect that cases of Shri Yadav should bot be listed before M.B. Sharma J. stands with-drawn and it is for him to appear or not to appear before M.B. Sharma J. and the proper thing will be that if a person does not want to appear before a particular Judge, he should refuse to accept the brief, rather than to accept it and than try to get an order of exception of the Judge. The order dated November 27, 1989 passed by one of us (M.B. Sharma J.) which has been extracted in the earlier order dated March 6, 1991, is self evident on this aspect of the matter.
(3.) On March 6, 1991, under a detailed order the request of Mr. Yadav that the Bench of which one of us (M.B. Sharma J.) is a member should not hear his cases, was declined. His request that the petitioner has filed S.L.P. in the Supreme Court and time should be granted, was also declined. Ordinarily this Court never declines such a request, but it was in the facts and circumstances of this case in which it appears that an exparte stay order was obtained, application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India was pending. Mr. Yadav was avoiding arguing the case on one pretext or the other, the said request was declined.;