The principle of nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa is firmly established in law and that justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done.

R. K. PATRA, J.

( 1 ) SHOULD a person sit to hear an appeal as the appellate authority against the decision of his own ? This is the moot question that arises for consideration in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE petitioner made an application (registered as Misc. Case No. 1850 of 1995) before the Mutation Officer-cum-Tahsildar, buguda for mutation of land measuring ac. 0. 028 in plot No. 3513 under Khata No. 1609 of Mouza Buguda in her favour which she claims to have purchased by a registered sale deed dated 12. 7. 1968. The Mutation officer-cum-Tahasildar by order dated 12. 3. 1996 rejected the said applciation. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection, she filed Mutation Appeal No. 5 of 1996 under rule 92 of the Orissa Mutation Manual before the Sub-Collector, Ghumsur, Bhanjanagar who by order dated 19. 9. 1998 (Annexure-2) dismissed it. This order passed in the appeal is. called in question by the petitioner on the ground that it is hit by the principle of "nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa' (no man can be a judge in his own cause ).

( 3 ) IT is on record that U. Misra was the mutation Officer-cum-Tahasildar was by order dated 12. 3. 1996 rejected the application of the petitioner for mutation of the land. It is an undisputed fact that he himself was the Sub-collector who as the appellate authority rejected the appeal which was filed against his own order. The petitioner filed a petition on 9. 9. 1998 (Annexure-1) through her advocate before the Sub-Collector stating therein that as Mutation Officer, he rejected her application for mutation and, as such, the appeal should be referred to the Additional District magistrate for "its proper adjudication in the interest of natural justice". The Sub-Collector in the impugned order has referred to the aforesaid peition filed on behalf of the petitioner and observed as follows :"the Advocate for the appellant filed a petition to refer this case to the Addl. District Magistrate, and for proper adjudication on the ground stated therein. Heard him. In this concention it is observed that the learned Adovcate shoud have filed such a petition before the addl. District Magistrate, Ganjam if the apprehends that he may not get justice in this Court. The petition being devoid of merit is rejected. "after making the aforesaid observation, he dealt with the merits of the case and dismissed the appeal holding that "there are no irregularities and illegalities committed by the tahsildar, Buguda while disposing the case.

( 4 ) THE rule of natural justice basically and essentially constitutes two elements, namely. (i) no one shall be condemned un-heard (audi alterant pattem) and (ii) no one shall be a judge in his own cause (nemo debet esse index in propria sua causa ). The present case is concerned with the second aspect. We may state that the requirement of 'fair play in action' or 'fair hearing' not only applies to judicial proceedings but also to quasi-judicial and administrative proceedings. Nemo debet esse index in propria sua causa' i. e. no one shall be a judge in his own cause is a principle now firmly established in law. Justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done. Justice can never be seen to be done if a man acts as a judge in his own cause or where he himself sits as an appellate authority to hear an appeal against his own order. The principle behind this rule is that the hearing should be done by the concerned authority with on unbiased mind. It has been recently observed by the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Shiuananda Pathak. with regard to the rule against bias as follows :"bias has many forms, ft may be pecuniary bias, personal bias, bias as to subject matter in dispute, or policy bias etc. In the instant case, we are not concerned with any of these forms of bias. We have to deal, as we shall presently see a new form, of bias, namely, bias on accpunt of judicial obstinacy".