RATAN LAL & ANR. Vs. PREM LATA PARIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is rather unusual and disturbing that the Court is required to deal with and dilate upon an application, seeking recusal of the Presiding Judge(s) of the Court from hearing the matter.

(2.) No sooner, had Ms. Prem Lata Parihar (applicant/respondent - present-in-person) began her submissions on the application eliciting exception by the Court concerned (Dinesh Mehta, J.) than, I posed a few questions to ascertain the possibility of conflict or bias at my end while hearing the matter, viz: Is she personally known to me? Or had she ever engaged me, as her counsel? Or had I ever remained opposite counsel in any of her litigation? Or is there any conflict of interest otherwise? Her answer was an obvious and emphatic 'No'.

(3.) With the given background, I set out to deal with the contentions raised by the applicant. However before doing so, it would be appropriate to reproduce the application filed by her, in extenso for better grasp of her purported grievance:-