STATE OF U.P. & ORS.versusJASVIR SINGH & ORS.

               [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 945


                  STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                          A
                             v.
                   JASVIR SINGH & ORS.
             (Civil Appeal No. 10061 of 2010)
                   NOVEMBER 26, 2010
                                                                B
     [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A. K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

    CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950:

     Article 226 - Writ petition - Scope of - Appeal for c
enhancement of compensation for the lands acquired in 1981
pending before High Court - Writ petition filed in 2005
seeking to quash the ac;juisition notification dated 18.8.1981,
to issue a fresh notification and to determine compensation
on the basis of such subsequent notification - High Court 0
asking the senior officers of the Government to appear in
court and directing them -to settle the matter outside the court .
- On subsequent date, High Court directing to recover from
the officers the interest on compensation accrued to the
landowners for delay in payment thereof- Held: The quantum E
of compensation will have to be decided in the appeals and
not in the writ petition - Since the writ petition and the appeals
are pending before the High Court, it cannot be said that there
is delay on the part of State Government or its officers in
effecting the payment of compensation - The procedure and
the method adopted by the Division Bench of the High Court F
in asking different senior officers of the State Government to
be present and virtually intimidating them to agree for a
settlement by paying compensation at current market value
instead of with reference to Notification dated 18.8.1981 is
improper and requires to be deprecated - Order of High Court G
set aside - High Court would dispose of the appeals
expeditiously - To avoid any impression of bias or prejudice,
Chief Justice of High Court would assign the matter to some

                            945                                 H
    946    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (AOOL.) S.C.R.


A other Bench - Practice and Propedure - Land Acquisition Act,
  1897- Administrative Law - Bias.

        Article 226 - Writ petition - Personal presence of senior
  officers in courts - HELD: It is a matter of concern that there
B is a growing trend among a few Judges of the High Courts
  routinely and frequently requiring the presence of officers of
  the level of Secretaries and other senior officers of the
  government and local and other authorities for perceived non-
  compliance with their suggestions or to seek insignificcint
C clarifications - The normal procedure in writ petitions is to
  hear the parties through their counsel who are instructed in
  the matters, and decide the petitions by examining the
  pleadings/affidavitslevidenceldocumentslmaterial - Requiring
  the presence of senior officers of the government in court
  should be as a last resort, in rare and exceptional cases,
D where such presence is absolutely necessary - In the instant
  case, the orders of the High Court requiring the senior officers
  of the Government to be present in court are improper -
  Practice and procedure - Judicial propriety.

E         ADMINISTRA T/ON OF JUSTICE:

        Settlement of disputes - Courts insisting presence of
  senior officers of Government to appear in person and
  directing to settle the matter outside the court - Held: Where
  the State has a definite policy or has taken a specific stand
F and that has been clearly explained by way of affidavit, the
  court should not attempt to impose a contrary view by way of
  suggestions or proposals for settlement - A court can of
  course express its views and issue directions through its
  reasoned orders, subject to /imitations in regard to
G interference in matters of policy- But it should not and, in fact,
  it cannot attempt to impose its views by asking an unwilling
  party to settle on the terms suggested by it - Practice and
  Procedure:

H
 STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. JASV~R SINGH & ORS.             947


     Appeals of the landowners seeking increase in the          A
amount of compensation for their lands acquired in terms
of the Notification dated 18.8.1981 issued u/s. 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were pending before the
High Court. In the year 2005, the landowners filed a writ
petition before the High Court seeking directions to the        B
State Government to issue a fresh Notification u/s.4 of the
Act, after setting aside the Notification dated 18.8.1981
and the declaration dated 14.11.1981, and to determine
the market value of the land as on the date of final award
after a fresh notification and not with reference to the        c
Notification dated 18.8.1981. In the writ petition, the
Division Bench of the high Court passed orders asking
the Principal Secretary, P.W.D. to appear in the court and
insisted upon the State authorities to settle the matter
outside the court. The stand of the State Government was
                                                                D
that it did not accept the reports of the District Magistrate
and the Commissioner as they had arrived at the rate on
the basis of a sale deed dated 25.9.2008 by ignoring the
fact that the notification u/s.4(1) had been issued on
18.8.1981. Ultimately, the High Court directed the
Principal Secretary (Finance) and the Principal Secretary       E
(Revenue) to appear in court on the date fixed and to
show cause as to why the interest at the rate of 9% be
not charged on the delayed payment and the amount be
not recovered from their salary to the extent of 50% each.
Aggrieved, the State Government filed the appeal.               F

    Allowing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1. The fact that the issue relating to increase
of compensation is pending in the appeals before the
                                                                G
High Court in pursuance of the order of remand by this
Court, is not in dispute. The quantum of compensation
will have to be decided in those appeals and not in a writ
petition. As on date, there is no order either in the appeal

                                                                H
   948   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A or the writ petition determining any amount (other than
  what was awarded by the reference court) as due to the
  respondents. The contention and prayer of the
  respondents in the writ petition that fresh notifications
  should be issued regarding the acquisitions, and the
B compensation should be determined with reference to the
  current rates as on the date of such fresh .notification and
  not as on 18.8.1981, is a matter that is yet to be decided
  in the writ petition. As both the writ petition and the
  appeals are pending, it cannot be said that there is any
c delay on the part of the State Government or its officers
  in effecting payment of compensation. If the High Court
  was of the view that the matter was getting unnecessarily
  delayed, or that any injustice had been caused to the land
  owners, it ought to have heard the writ petition finally and
  decided the dispute on merits instead of listing the matter
0
  on several days and asking different senior officers of the
  State Government to be present and virtually intimidate
  them to agree for a settlement by paying compensation
  at current market value instead of with reference to
  Notification dated 18.8.1981. The procedure and method
E adopted by the Division Bench of the High Court is
  improper and requires to be deprecated. [Para 6] [955-G-
  H; 956-A-E]

       2.1. It is a matter of concern that there is a growing
F trend among a few Judges of the High Courts routinely
  and frequently requiring the presence of senior officers
  of the government and local and other authorities,
  including officers of the level of Secretaries, for perceived
  non-compliance with their suggestions or to seek
G insignificant clarifications. Greater the power, greater
  should be the responsibility in exercising such power.
  The power of the High Court under Article 226 of the
  Constitution of India, 1950 is no doubt very wide. It can
  issue to any person or authority or government,
H directions, orders, writs for enforcement of fundamental
  STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. JASVIR SINGH & ORS.           949


rights or for any other purpose. The High Court has the        A
power to summon or require the per:sonal presence of
any officer, to assist the court to render justice or arrive
at a proper decision. But there are well settled norms and
procedures for exercise of such power. The normal
procedure in writ petitions is to hear the parties through     B
their counsel and decide the same by examining the
pleadings/affidavit/evidence/ documents/material. Where
the court seeks any information about the compliance
with any of its directions, it is furnished by affidavits or
reports supported by relevant documents. Requiring the         C
presence of senior officers of the government in court
should be as a last resort, in rare and exceptional cases,
~here such presence is absolutely necessary, such as
to seek assistance in explaining complex policy or
technical issues, which the counsel is not able to explain
properly. The court may also require personal attendance       D
of the officers, where it finds that any officer is
deliberately or with ulterior motiv~s withholding any
specific information required by the court which he is
legally bound to provide or has misrepresented or
suppressed the correct position. [Para 7-8] [956-F-H; 957-     E
A-F]

     3. Where the State has a definite policy or has taken
a specific stand and that has been clearly explained by
way of affidavit, the court should not attempt to impose       F
a contrary view by way of suggestions or proposals for
settlement. A court can of course express its views and
issue directions through its reasoned orders, subject to
limitations in regard to interference in matters of policy.
But it should not and, in fact, it cannot attempt to impose    G
its views by asking an unwilling party to settle on the
terms suggested by it. At all events the courts should
avoid directing the senior officers to be present in court
to settle the grievances of individual litigants for whom
the court may have sympathy. The court should realize
                                                               H
    950    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A that the State has its own priorities, policies and
   compulsions which may result in a particular stand. The
   senior officers of the government are in-charge of the
   administration of the State and have their own busy
   schedules. The court should desist from calling them for
8 ·all and sundry matters, as that would amount to abuse
   of judicial power. Courts should guard against such
   transgressions in the exercise of power. It may be that
   the Judge bona fide believes that by requiring the
   presence of senior officers, he could expedite matters and
C render effective justice. But it is not sufficient that the
   object of the Judge is noble or bonafide. The process of
   achieving the object should be just and proper, without
   exceeding the well recognised norms of judicial propriety.
   [Paras 9, 10] [957-F-H; 958-A-C-F-G]

D        State of Gujarat vs. Turabali Gulamhussain Hirani - 2007
    (10) SCR 531 =2007 (14) sec 94 - relied on.

      4. On the facts and circumstances, the interim
  directions of the Division Bench of the High Court issued
E while dealing with the writ petition challenging the
  acquisition, requiring the Principal Secretary (PWD),
  Principal Secretary (Finance) or Principal Secretary
  (Revenue) to be present in court on different dates, are
  improper. Impugned order of the High Court is set aside.
F High Court would dispose of the pending appeals
  expeditiously on merits. To avoid any impression of bias
  or prejudice, the Chief Justice of the High Court would
  assign the matter to some other bench. (Paras 12, 13]
  [959-F-H; 960-A-B]

G                        Case Law Reference:
          2007 (10) SCR 531         relied on           Para 11

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    10061 of 2010.
H
  STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. JASVIR SINGH & ORS.               951


    From the Judgment & Order dated 22.09.2010 of the High         A
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No. 77449 of 2005.

   Shail Kumar Dwivedi, Pradeep Misra, Suraj Singh, Manoj
Kumar Dwivedi for the Appellants.

    Ashok Kumar Singh for the Respondents.
                                                                  ·s

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Leave granted. Heard.

     2. In regard to acquisition of the lands of respondents C
under notifications dated 18.8.1981 and 14.11.1981 issued
under section 4(1) and section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
('Act' for short), the LAO had made an award offering a
compensation of Rs.12000/- per acre which was increased to
Rs.17000/- per acre by the Reference Court, and to Rs.30,000/ D
- per acre by the Allahabad High Court. On further appeal by
the respondents, this Court by order dated 12.9.2005 set aside
the judgment dated 29.1.2004 of the High Court and remanded
the matter to the High Court for fresh decision on merits in
regard to quantum and statutory benefits, in accordance with E
law. This Court also observed that since the appeals were old,
the High Court will have to take steps to dispose the appeals
expeditiously. We are informed that the appeals (FA No.880
of 1993 and FA No.401 of 1998) are still pending consideration
by the High Court.                        ·                    F

      3. The respondents thereafter filed a writ petition
(No.77449 of 2005) seeking a direction for issue of a fresh
notification under sections 4 and 6 of the Act, after setting aside
the notifications dated 18.8.1981and14.11.1981 under G
sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act. They also sought a direction to
the appellant to pay mesne profits and damages with interest,
after adjusting the amount under the award already made, from
the date of taking possession (19.9.1986) till date of issuance
of fresh notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The
                                                                    H
    952    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   respondents thereafter filed two applications tor amendment of
    prayers seeking a direction for determination of market value
    as on the date of final award after a fresh notification and not
    with reference to the notification dated 18.8.1991.

         4. In the said writ proceedings, the Division Bench of the
8
    High Court apparently suggested to the state government that
    it should settle the claim of the respondents. There was
    resistance from the state government. This led to series of
    interim orders by the High Court. We may refer to them to
C   understand the background in which the impugned order was
    made.

        (4.1) We may begin by extracting the directions issued on
    19.5.2010.

D         "The grievance of the petitioners is that possession over
          the land of the petitioners has been taken over by the
          respondents authority without authority of law.

          This Court had directed to settle the matter outside the
          Court. In compliance of the Court's order, the State
E         Government constituted two committees of which first was
          headed by the Collector of the distriet concerned, who after
          determining gave his report and has recommended a rate,
          which was acceptable to the petitioner. The second
          committee which was headed by Divisional Commissioner
F         of the division concerned also gave his report and has
          recommended a rate, which too was acceptable to the
          petitioner. Thus, it is contended that the rate recommended
          by both the committees is acceptable to the Petitioner.

G         We, however, direct the Respondents-State Government
          to take a decision on the report as recommended by both
          the committee within a period of one month from the date
          of presentation of a certified copy of this order."

                                                (Emphasis supplied)
H
  STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. JASVIR SINGH & ORS.              953
             [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

    (4.2) When the matter thereafter came up on 5.7.2010, the      A
High Court made the following order :

    "List/put up on 12.7.2010.

    On that day, the Principal Secretary, Public Works
    Department, Govt. of U. P. Lucknow shall appear to show        B ~
    cause as to why our order dated 19. 5. 2010 has not been
    complied with by accepting the rates given by the
    Collector and Divisional Commissioner. An affidavit shall
    also be filed by him by that date.
                                                                   c
                                         (Emphasis supplied)

In compliance with the said order, an affidavit was filed on
behalf of Principal Secretary, P.W.D. explaining that as the
District Magistrate and the Commissioner had arrived at the
                                                                   D
rate on the basis of sale deed dated 25.09.2008 by ignoring
the fact that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act had been issued on 18.08.1981, the said
reports were not accepted by the Government. It was also
stated that the State Government has taken a decision to pay
compensation for the land at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre      E
with solatium and interest, in all Rs.10,99,853-75, and that had
been communicated to the Respondents. It may be noted that
the District Magistrate had approved the report of the District
Land Acquisition Officer dated 17.2.2009 working out the
amount due as Rs.29,86,99,086/- (at the rate 84,74,760/- per       F
acre worked out on the basis of a sale deed 25.9.2008 in regard
to a small plot measuring 240 sq.m.).

     (4.3) When the matter came up on 12.7.2010, the High
Court recorded the presence of Sri Ravindra Singh, Principal       G'
Secretary, Public Works Department, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow,
and exempted his personal attendance and adjourned the
matter by twenty days. When the matter came up on 5.8.2010,
the following order was made by the High Court:
                                                                   H
     954    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A          "Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, Senior
           Advocate Shri V.K.S. Chaudhary and the Advocate
           General, (it is directed that the) Government shall file an
           affidavit within two weeks as to why the rate recommended
           by the Collector has not been accepted.
B.
           List after two weeks for further hearing."

        (4.4) Thereafter the appellant filed an affidavit dated
  19.8.2010 submitting that the matter was re-examined and
  found that the recommendations of District Magistrate as well
C as of Commissioner were not binding on State Government;
  that this Court (in Swama Lata Vs. State of Haryana - (2010)
  4 S.C.C. 532) has held that a writ petition challenging the
  notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act
  was not maintainable after lapse of several years; and that
D therefore the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. The matter
  again came up on 30.8.2010 and the division bench perused
  the said affidavit and requested the Advocate General to be
  available at the next hearing on 7.9.2010. When the matter
  came up on 22.9.2010, the division bench made the impugned
E order which is extracted below :

           "Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we direct
           the Principal Secretary (Finance) and Principal Secretary
           (Revenue) Govt. of U.P. Lucknow to appear in person
           before this Court on the next date fixed in this case to show
F.
           cause as to why the interest at the rate of 9% be not
           charged on the delayed payment which has occurred on
           account of them and the recovery thereof be not made
           from their personal salary to the extent of 50% each
           respectively.
G
           List this case for further orders/hearing on 20.10.2010. The
           copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary
           (Finance) and Principal Secretary (Revenue) Govt. of U.P.
           Lucknow through FAX by tomorrow."
H
  STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. JASVIR SINGH & ORS.                 955
             [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
                                           (Emphasis supplied)        A

     5. Aggrieved by the said order dated 22.9.2010 directing
the Principal Secretary (Finance) and Principal Secretary
(Revenue) of the Government of U.P., to appear in person and
the direction to show cause as to why interest at the rate of 9%
                                                                      8
per annum shall not be charged and the same be recovered
from their personal salary to the extent of 50% each on the
payments allegedly delayed by them, the State has filed this
appeal by special leave, raising the following questions :

      (a)   Whether the High Court while hearing a writ petition C
            challenging a land acquisition can force the State
            Government to settle the matter outside the Court?

      (b)   Whether the High Court was justified in calling the
            senior officers of the state government and directing     0
            them to settle the matter, when the writ petition filed
            by Respondents is being resisted by the state
            government (by contending that the writ petition
            itself was not maintainable as it purported to
            challenge the land acquisition proceedings 24             E
            years after the issuance of notifications under
            Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and 19 years after
            taking of the possession)?

      (c)   Whether the High Court was justified in repeatedly
            directing the senior officers of the rank of F
            Secretaries to Government to be present in court,
            when the state government refused to settle the
            matter, and pressurize them to settle the disputed
            claim, by threatening to recover the entire interest
            from their salaries?                                 G

    6.· The fact that the issue relating to increase of
compensation is pending in appeals before the High Court in
pursuance of the order of remand by this Court, is not in
dispute. The quantum of compensation will have to be decided H
    956   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   in those appeals and not in a writ petition. As on date, there is
    no order either in the appeal or the writ petition determining any
    amount (other than what was awarded by the Reference Court)
    as due to the respondents. The contention and prayer of the
    respondents in the writ petition that fresh notifications should
B   be issued regarding the acquisitions and the compensation
    should be determined with reference to the current rates as on
    the date of such fresh notification and not as on 18.8.1981, is
    a matter that is yet to be decided in the writ petition. As both
    the writ petition and the appeals are pending, it cannot be said
c   that there is any delay on the part of the state government or
    its officers in effecting payment of compensation. The delay at
    present is in fact on account of the pendency of the matters
    before the High Court. If the High Court was of the view that
    the matter was getting unnecessarily delayed, or that any
    injustice had been caused to the land owners, it ought to have
0
    heard the writ petition finally and decided the dispute on merits
    instead of listing the matter on several days and asking different
    senior officers of the state government to be present and
    virtually intimidate them to agree for a settlement by paying
    compensation at current market value instead of with reference
E   to 18.8.1981. The procedure and method adopted by the
    Division Bench of the High Court, to say the least, is improper
    and requires to be deprecated.

          7. It is a matter of concern that there is a growing trend
F   among a few Judges of the High Court to routinely and
    frequently require the presence, in court, of senior officers of
    the government and local and other authorities, including officers
    of the level of Secretaries, for perceived non-compliance with
    its suggestions or to seek insignificant clarifications. The power
G   of the High Court under Article 226 is no doubt very wide. It can
    issue to any person or authority or government, directions,
    orders, writs for enforcement of fundamental rights or for any
    other purpose. The High Court has the power to summon or
    require the personal presence of any officer, to assist the court
H
  STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. JASVIR SINGH & ORS.                957
             [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

to render justice or arrive at a proper decision. But there are      A
well settled norms and procedures for exercise of such power.

      8. This court has repeatedly noticed that the real power of
courts is not in passing decrees and orders, nor in punishing
offenders and contemnors, nor in summoning the presence of           B
senior officers, but in the trust, faith and confidence of the
common man in the judiciary. Such trust and confidence should
not be frittered away by unnecessary and unwarranted show or
exercise of power. Greater the power, greater should be the
responsibility in exercising such power. The normal procedure        C
in writ petitions is to hear the parties through their counsel who
are instructed in the matter, and decide them by examining the
pleadings/affidavit/evidence/documents/material. Where the
court seeks any information about the compliance with any of
its directions, it is furnished by affidavits or reports supported
by relevant documents. Requiring the presence of the senior          D
officers of the government in court should be as a last resort,
in rare and exceptional cases, where such presence is
absolutely necessary, as for example, where it is necessary to
seek assistance in explaining complex policy or technical
issues, which the counsel is not able to explain properly. The       E
court may also require personal attendance of the officers,
where it finds that any officer is deliberately or with ulterior
motives withholding any specific information required by the
court whici. he is legally bound to provide or has
misrepresenced or suppressed the correct position.                   F

     9. Where the State has a definite policy or taken a specific
stand and that has been clearly explained by way of affidavit,
the court should not attempt to impose a contrary view by way
of suggestions or proposals for settlement. A court can of           G
course express its views and issue directions through its
reasoned orders, subject to limitations in regard to interference
in matters of policy. But it should not, and in fact, it cannot
attempt to impose its views by asking an unwilling party to
settle on the terms suggested by it. At all events the courts
                                                                     H
    958   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A should avoid directing the senior officers to be present in court
  to settle the grievances of individual litigants for whom the court
  may have sympathy. The court should realize that the state has
  its own priorities, policies and compulsions which may result
  in a particular stand. Merely because the court does not like
B such a stand, it cannot summon or call the senior officers time
  and again to court or issue threatening show cause notices. The
  senior officers of the government are in-charge of the
  administration of the State, have their own busy schedules. The
  court should desist from calling them for all and sundry matters,
c as that would amount to abuse of judicial power. Courts should
  guard against such transgressions in the exercise of power. Our
  above observations do not of course apply to summoning of
  contemnors in contempt jurisdiction.

        10. We have made the above observations rather
D
  reluctantly. Our observations should not be construed as
  restricting or limiting the exercise of the extraordinary
  jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution
  of India. The observations are intended to be guidance for self-
  regulation and self-restriction by courts. It became necessary
E as we have noticed that the learned Presiding Judge of the
  Bench has been frequently making such orders directing senior
  officers of the Government to be present and settle claims. It
  is a coincidence that another case where a similar procedure
  was adopted by the learned Presiding Judge of the bench,
F came up before us today - Lake Development Authority,
  Nainital vs. Heena Khan (CA No.10087-10090 of 2010
  decided on 26.11.2010). We have no doubt that the learned
  Judge bona fide believes that by requiring the presence of
  senior officers, he could expedite matters and render effective
G justice. But it is not sufficient that the object of the Judge is
  noble or bonafide. The process of achieving the object should
  be just and proper, without exceeding the well recognised
  norms of judicial propriety.

H
  STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. JASVIR SINGH & ORS.               959
             [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

    11. In this context we may refer to the following              A
observations of this court in State of Gujarat vs. Turabali
Gu/amhussain Hirani - 2007 (14) SCC 94 :

    "A large number of cases have come up before this Court
    where we find that learned Judges of various High Courts       B
    have been summoning the Chief Secretary, Secretaries to
    the Government (Central and state), Directors General of
    Police, Director-CBI or BSF or other senior officials of the
    Government. There is no doubt that the High Court has
    power to summon these officials, but in our opinion that       C
    should be done in very rare and exceptional cases when
    there are compelling circumstances to do so. Such
    summoning orders should not be passed lightly or as a
    routine or at the top of a hat.

    Judges should have modesty and humility. They should           D
    realize that summoning a senior official, except in some
    very rare and exceptional situation, and that too for
    compelling reasons, is counterproductive and may also
    involve heavy expenses and valuable time of the official
    concerned. The judiciary must have respect for the             E
    executive and the legislature. Judges should realize that
    officials like the Chief Secretary, Secretary to Government,
    Commissioners, District Magistrates, senior police
    officials, etc. are extremely busy persons who are often
    working from morning till night."                              F

     12. On the facts and circumstances, the interim directions
of the Division Bench of the High Court, issued while dealing
with a writ petition challenging the acquisition, requiring the
Principal Secretary (PWD), Principal Secretary (Finance) or        G
Principal Secretary (Revenue) to be present on different dates,
are improper and are liable to be interfered.

    13. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the
High Court and request the High Court to dispose of the
                                                                   H
    960    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   pending appeal expeditiously on merits. To avoid any
    impression of bias or prejudice, we request the Hon'ble Chief
    Justice of the High Court to assign the matter to some other
    bench. All questions are left open.

8   R.P.                                        Appeal allowed.