JUDGMENT

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. :- Special leave granted.

2. Mr. B. M. Lal, J. of the Madhya Pradesh High Court while dismissing an apparently unsustainable review petition has, however, made certain derogatory remarks against Mr. A. M. Mathur, senior Advocate and also the Ex-Advocate General of the State. Mr. Mathur has appealed to this Court for setting aside that order.

3. This matter pertains to a case which has come to be known as M. P. Liquor case. It was with regard to the grant for construction of new distillaries by the policy decision of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. That policy decision was challenged before the High Court by way of writ petitions. The Writ Petitions were allowed by the Division Bench consisting of the Acting Chief Justice Mr. J. S. Verma (as he then was) and Justice B. M. Lal. In those writ petitions, Mr. Mathur as Advocate-General appeared. and argued for the State Government. Learned Acting Chief Justice delivered the main judgment in the writ petitions invalidating the decision of the Government on the ground that it violated Article 14 of the Constitution. Justice B. M. Lal delivered a separate concurring opinion in which he made highly disparaging remarks attributing mala fides and underhand dealing to the State Government. Against the judgment of the High Court, several appeals including one by the State of Madhya Pradesh were filed before this Court. The appeal preferred by the State was argued by the then Attorney General of India assisted by the appellant. This Court allowed the Appeals and set aside the judgment of the High Court. The decision of this Court has since been reported in (1987) 1 SCR 1 (State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal).

4. Bhagwati, C. J., speaking for the Court in that case while expressing strong disapproval of the strictures made by B. M. Lal, J. observed (at p. 66) (of SCR): (at p. 287 of AIR):

"We may observe in conclusion that Judges should not use strong and carping language while criticising the conduct of parties or their witnesses. They must act with sobriety moderation and restraint. They must have the humility to recognise that they are not infallible and any harsh and disparaging stricutures passed by them against any party may be mistaken and unjustified and if so, they may do considerable harm and mischief and result in injustice. Here, in the present case, the observations made and strictures passed by B. M. Lal, J. were totally unjustified and unwarranted and they ought not to have been made."

On or about 3rd June 1988 i.e. after a delay of 738 days Mr. Promod Kumar Gupta, Advocate who had no connection whatsoever with the earlier litigation in the writ petitions, or appeals, filed a review petition before the High Court. He was represented by Mr. S. Dixit, Advocate. In the review petition it was inter alia alleged that the State Government by committing fraud has procured the judgment from the SC, thereby vitiating the most solemn proceedings of the Apex Court of the Nation. He has also filed an application No. 3858 of 1988 for interim findings on the question of fraud.

5. On 29 October 1988, the matter was listed for admission before a Bench consisting of learned Judges Mr. C. P. Sen and Mr. B. M. Lal. After arguments, C. P. Sen, J. seems to have dictated his order in the open Court dismissing the review petition. He expressed the view that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition and the economically well to-do parties to the writ petitions who lost their case before this Court did not choose to file any review petition. He also held that the petition for review was not maintainable before the High Court since the decision of the High Court was reversed by this Court. The petition was also held to be hopelessly barred by limitation and there was no sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay.

6. B. M. Lal, J. did not pass any order on 29 October, 1988. He pronounced his order on 6th February 1989. In this interregnum there was a