Allegations of bias and partiality against Judges, if deliberate and made with the intention of shaking the confidence of the litigant public, amount to contempt of court.

1. This proceeding for contempt of Court has been started against the opposite party on a petition filed by the State of Bihar in August, 1962, The relevant facts of the case may be shortly stated.

2. The opposite party challenged the validity of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, and the Patna High Court declared it to be ultra vires of the Constitution as being violative of Article 14, The State Government took an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Constitution was amended during the pendency of that appeal. The amendment conferred immunity upon the Land Reforms Act from attack on the ground that it violated any of the Articles in Part III of the Constitution. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the State Government, and held that, but for some minor provisions contained in Sections 4(b) and 23(f) of the Act, it was valid and constitutional

3. The opposite party is the ex-proprietor of Ramgarh and Serampur Estates. The State Government issued notification No. 3-L.R./ZAN., dated the 31st October, 1951, in respect of the opposite partys estates with the consequence that the estates vested in the State of Bihar. This notification was published in the Bihar Gazette Extraordinary on the 3rd November, 1951.

4. The opposite party instituted Title Suit No. 24 of 1953 against the State of Bihar in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh, for a declaration that the Bihar Land Reforms Act was unconstitutional, and that the notification issued under it was invalid, and for permanent injunction restraining the State Government from interfering with his possession over the estates. An Additional Subordinate Judge tried the suit, and by his judgment dated the 18th July, 1956, refused to grant the declaration and the injunction prayed for but gave a finding that the estates had vested in the State of Bihar on 26-1-1955 and not on the 3rd November, 1951. The State of Bihar preferred First Appeal No. 557 of 1956 in this Court against the finding about the date of vesting. The opposite party filed First Appeal No. 641 of 1956 against the refusal to grant him the declaration and the injunction as prayed for by him.

5. The two appeals remained pending in this Court for about four years. It depends, to a large extent, upon the appellant to get an appeal ready for hearing at an early date. While First Appeal No. 557 of 1958 became ready for hearing in September, 1960, First Appeal No. 641 was not ready for healing. With the consent of the parties, a Division Bench passed an order on the 15th September, 1960, that First Appeal No. 557 be placed for hearing on the 28th November, 1960, subject to part heard, and that, if possible, First Appeal No. 641 of 1956 be also placed for hearing at the same time, On the 17th November however the parties moved the Court again, and the hearing of First Appeal No 357 was adjourned with consent to the 14th December, 1960. It was also mentioned in the order that First Appeal No. 641 be also placed for hearing along with First Appeal No. 557. if that appeal could be made ready by that date.

6. On the 6th December, Mr. Madan Mohan Prasad, a junior advocate, mentioned on a slip of paper on behalf of the opposite party that First Appeal No. 557 be adjourned for a week. It was not brought to the notice of the Bench that the case had been specially fixed for hearing, nor that the Government Advocate had refused to consent to the adjournment. The Bench granted the adjournment, as prayed for. On the 13th December, 1960, the Government Advocate mentioned to the Court that Mr. Madan Mohan Prasad had taken the adjournment without disclosing that he had refused to give his consent, and that the case was specially fixed When Mr. Madau Mohan Prasad was sent lor and when he appeared, he admitted his mistake, and tendered apology. The Court then ordered that the hearing of the ease would proceed from the 14th December, as previously fixed. Mr. P. R. Das. who was the senior counsel of the opposite party stated on th