The principle of natural justice, nemo debet esse judex in propria causa, applies to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, and requires that every member of a tribunal or adjudicating body must be able to act judicially and impartially, without any reasonable apprehension of bias in the mind of the litigating public.

( 1 ) THE appeal is taken up for hearing by treating it as included in the day's cause list.

( 2 ) THE respondents Nos. 1 to 4 (a) are the original Writ Petitioners. The writ Petition, being Civil Order No. 10849 (W) of 1987, was instituted by them challenging the proceedings under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), which culminated into an order recording the names of the appellants as Bargadars and the consequential issue of "barga Certificates" in their favour in respect of the land owned by the Writ Petitioners. The writ petition was heard and allowed by the learned single Judge who, by his judgment and order dt. Dec. 12, 1989, set aside the impugned order recording the names of the appellants as Bargadars and also quashed the "barga Certificates"; if any, issued pursuant to such order. It was clarified, however, that the respondent authorities were not thereby prevented from recording the names of Bargadars, if any, "on the basis of proper materials and in accordance with law" within six months from the date of the communication of the said direction.

( 3 ) BE it stated that the appellants, although cited as private-respondents, were not appearing when the hearing of the writ petition took place. It is their case that no notice of the proceeding was served upon some of them and that under those circumstances the case was decided ex parte against them. In the course of the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge, however, the following observation is found to have been made which does not support the said version :"it appears that the private respondents, although were intended to be served, but all of them have refused to accept the notice and an affidavit of service has been affirmed on 7/03/1988, and filed in Court. "be that as it may, an application for review was filed by the appellants and one of the grounds therein raised was that the learned single Judge having appeared, while at the Bar, for the present writ petitioners in a previous proceeding in this Court, being Civil Order No. 13055 (W) of 1980, in which the "operation Barga Scheme" initiated by the State Government and the initiation or apprehended initiation of the proceedings for the recording of the names of Bargadars in respect of the self-same land was under challenge, he should not have heard and decided the present writ petition. Other grounds also appear to have been taken, such as non-service of notice/copy of the writ petition and the decision being not in accordance with law. The review petition was rejected by the judgment under appeal rendered on Jan. 19, 1990. Hence the present appeal against the said judgment.

( 4 ) IN the course of the judgment under appeal the learned single Judge held that no case for review was made out because: (a) the writ petition was decided after due service of notice upon the parties and after a contested hearing and if some of the appellants did not choose to accept the notice they cannot be heard to make a grievance against the adverse judgment and seek a review; (b) the writ petition was allowed following an earlier decision rendered by another learned single Judge of this Court and there was thus no error apparent on the face of the record justifying the review and (c) liberty was still reserved for recording the names of the Bargadars, if any, on the basis of proper materials and in accordance with law and, therefore, no prejudice was likely to be occasioned to the appellants even if the review was not granted. The point that the learned single Judge ought not to have heard and decided the case on the ground of his having appeared for the writ petitioners in a previous proceeding in this Court is not dealt with in the judgment. There is some controversy between the parties as to whether the said point was actually raised during the course of the hearing, of the review petition, but there is no dispute that at the hearing of an earlier writ