that since the law cannot afford any relationship other than the truth, there is no favourite which may be blunted by legal jugglery.

The propriety of the Judicial institution in due discharge of its responsibility is dependent upon the factor that any party to the litigation may not be subjected to suffer adversely either directly or indirectly by any order passed by the court of law. There is a difference in passing a wrong judgement and in subservient the cause sponsor before the judicial institution after affiliation in the matter. The modus operandi may not be explicit by the same is always hidden inside the veracity of such order. For unjust cause, the court may not divest its extra ordinary jurisdiction to provide such individual striving for perpetuation of an unjust cause by the court of law.

The question arises that since the law cannot afford any relationship other than the truth, there is no favourite which may be blunted by legal jugglery. It is said that the reason varies in its conclusions according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual personality by the reasoning should be built up for which an old scholastic logic stands for. This is like jingling of a child's toy. Thus a decision of a Judge usually determines, hat is reasonable belonging to the knowledge of law, which is likely to be decided rationally within the parameter of reason, which substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The question arises as to whether the Hon’ble Courts are merely to act by overlooking the object to arrive at the truth is obliviously the role of the Hon’ble Court by ensuring that any material facts, which are brought on record may not resultant in the judgement by miscarriage of justice. The dignity of the ocean lies not in its furry capable of causing destruction but in the expansion of the gratitude by vast expansion of the receptivity.

The question arises as to whether a wrong decision rendered in absence of established norms of judicial parameter by adequate acceptance of the logic advanced by the party may not be tantamount the obliteration from the prescribed standards adhered with the judicial evaluation. There may be the error committed by the Judges in passing the order and judgement but if the provisions of the law itself are providing the impediment for the grant of relief claimed, even after recording such Ryder providing obstacle in carving out a judgement, the judgement shall be deemed to have been passed with extraneous consideration behind which, may also be the corruption. The paradox of demonstrative style for imparting justice to fulfill the three ingredients of the elementary principles of natural justice may always be kept in the mind by the Hon’ble Court while dealing with the sensitive issues relating to the issues of removal of the Chairman of the Nagar Palika Parishad of a district. It has been held if the charges are levelled by imputation of character assassination on account of embezzlement of an exorbitant amount by a public authority causing loss to the public exchequer, in such circumstances the Hon’ble Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must always be susceptible for grant of the relief.

Fraud and justice never dealt together as fraud neither defends nor excuses any man. It is bound to expose by the afflux of time which is apparently visible in the given instance of passing the Judgement in the same matter once by allowing the writ petition while within the same material, not only dismissing the writ petition but also debarring the individual for another five year from the post of Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad but declaring her inherently disqualifies at the time of assuming the office after winning the election. In such cases the consensus of the public is pricked by divulging to the process of recapturing the allegation levelled having impunity in exercise of our justice delivery system by the Constitutional Court.