TMI Blog1959 (8) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all the questions raised in favour of the respondents, and if the order of the Regional Transport Authority was set aside and the appellants were given another opportunity to make their representations to that Authority, it would be, as the High Court says, only an empty formality. As their vehicles have already been withdrawn from the routes and replaced by the vehicles of the Corporation, the effect of any such order would not only be of any help to the appellant but would introduce unnecessary complication and avoidable confusion. In the circumstances, it appears to us that as the appellants have failed all along the line, to interfere on a technical point of no practical utility is "to strain at a gnat after swallowing a camel ". We cannot, therefore, say that the High Court did not rightly exercise its discretion in this matter. The appeals fail and, in the circumstances, are dismissed without costs. - C.A. 198 OF 1959 - - - Dated:- 21-8-1959 - K. Subbarao, J. N. C. Chatterjee, G. Suryanarayana, K. Mangach and T. V. R. Tatachari, for the appellants. D. Narasaraju, Advocate-General for the State of Andhra Pradesh, D. Venkatappiah Sastry and T. M. Sen, for the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uashing of the order of the Government approving the scheme and directing it to forbear from taking over any of the routes on which the appellants were engaged in transport business. After the said order, notices were issued by the Government to all the objectors informing them that a personal hearing would be given by the Chief Minister on December 9, 1958, and they were further informed that they were at liberty to file further objections before November 30, 1958. The Chief Minister heard the representatives of the objectors and the Corporation and passed orders dated December 19, 1958, rejecting the objections filed and approving the scheme as originally published. The order approving the scheme was duly published by the Government in the official Gazette oil ]December 22, 1958. On December 23, 1958, the Corporation applied to the Road Transport Authority for the issue of permits for plying stage carriages and for eliminating the permits granted to the private bus operators. On --December 24, 1958, the said Authority passed orders rendering the permits of the appellants ineffective from December 24, 1958, and also issuing permits to the Corporation in -respect of the routes prev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disclosing the relevant principles governing the doctrine of bias . The principles governing the doctrine of bias vis-a-vis judicial tribunals are well-settled and they are : (i) no man shall be a judge in his own cause; (ii) justice should not only be done but manifestly and undoubtedly seem to be done. The two maxims yield the result that if a member of a judicial body is subject to a bias (whether financial or other) in favour of, or against, any party to a dispute, or is in such a position that a bias must be assumed to exist, he ought not to take part in the decision or sit on the tribunal ; and that any direct pecuniary interest, however small, in the subject-matter of inquiry will disqualify a judge, and any interest, though not pecuniary, will have the same effect, if it be sufficiently substantial to create a reasonable suspicion of bias . The said principles are equally applicable to authorities, though they are not courts of justice or judicial tribunals, who have to act judicially in deciding the rights of others, i.e., authorities who are empowered to discharge quasi-judicial functions. The said principles are accepted by the learned Counsel on both sides; b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spute,; and in the absence of a clear provision to that effect I think that the ordinary rule, that no one can be both party and judge in the same cause, holds good. This decision, therefore, is an authority for the pro- position that, unless the legislature clearly and expressly ordained to the contrary, the principles of natural justice cannot be violated. In The King v. Leicester Justices ([1927] 1 K.B. 557), a case also arising under the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, the king's Bench Division held that the mere fact that the licensing justice has originated an objection to the renewal of a licence does not disqualify him by reason of interest from sitting and adjudicating as a member of that authority upon the matter of that licence. Salter, J., brought out the distinction between the Bath Justices' Case ([1925] 1 K.B. 685) and the case before him in the following terms, at p. 565: The distinction is that, in that case, Parliament had not sanctioned what was done; in this case it has. Dealing with the argument that there was some, risk of bias if the statutory duty was discharged, the learned Judge rejected it with the observation that some risk of bi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. The Act, therefore, does not authorise the State Government to act in derogation of the principles of natural justice. The next question is whether the State Government, in the present case, acted in violation of the said principles. The argument that as this Court held in the previous stage of this litigation that the hearing given by the secretary in charge of the Transport Department offended the principles of natural justice, we should hold, as a logical corollary to the same, that the same infirmity would attach to the Chief Minister. This argument has to be rejected on two grounds: firstly, for the reason that on the last occasion the appellants did not question the right of the Chief Minister to decide on the objections to the scheme,- and indeed they assumed his undoubted right to do so-but canvassed the validity of his order on the basis that the secretary, who was part of the Transport Department, gave the hearing and not the Chief Minister and, therefore, a party to the dispute was made a judge of his own cause. If, as it is now contended, on the same reasoning the Chief Minister also would be disqualified from deciding the dispute, that point should have been raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot, therefore, accept the argument of the learned Counsel that the Chief Minister is part of the department constituted as a statutory Undertaking under the Act. The next question is whether the Chief Minister by his acts and speeches disqualified himself to act for the State Government in deciding the dispute. In the affidavit filed by Nageswara Rao, one of the appellants herein, in respect of the writ petitions filed in the High Court, he states in ground (8) of paragraph (14) thus: He (the Chief Minister) is the Minister in charge of the Transport Department at whose instance the Scheme was first published under Section 68C of the Act. He is not only the initiator of the Scheme but also the person who is interested in its approval and implementation. He has thus a direct and specific connection with the dispute being a party thereto and he would be acting as a Judge in his own cause when he gives a personal hearing and considers the objections. Mr. Chatterjee contends that this allegation embodied in ground (8) has not been contradicted by the respondents. It is not correct to say that these allegations went unchallenged, for in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. made on October 14, 1957, and the relevant portion thereof reads : I do not have any prejudice against the Krishna District. The bus transport in Telangana was nationalised 25 years ago. The Bus Transport nationalisation was extended to Krishna District since it is contiguous to Telangana in regard to transport services. It will be extended to the other districts gradually. It requires 12 crores of rupees to introduce nationalisation in all the districts at the same time. The Government is aware that Nationalisation of Bus Transport is not profitable. But we should fall in line with other States and move with the times. There are 360 buses in Krishna District. I cannot give an assurance that all these would be taken over. It is regrettable that these should be subjected to severe criticism when they are being done in public interest. This speech only reflects the policy of the Government. Exhibit V is said to be an extract from the report of the Indian Express dated October 18, 1957. The material part of it runs thus: Nationalisation of road transport services in the Andhra area was a settled fact and there was absolutely no question of going back on it ........... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him trained by the late T. Prakasam were never afraid of opposition. If it had been established that the Chief Minister made the speeches extracted in Exhibits VI, lX and X, there would have been considerable force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants; but no attempt was made to prove that the Chief Minister did in fact make those speeches. It is true that the extracts from the newspapers were filed before the Chief Minister and they were received subject to proof ; but no person who heard the Chief Minister making those speeches filed an affidavit before him. The Chief Minister did not admit that he made the statements attributed to him. The Chief Minister in his order approving the scheme says: As regards the paper cuttings, I may mention that in the course of a long and varied, political career I have made hundreds of statements on many an occasion and many of them may be purely personal opinions. Moreover, it is not always that the press people consult the persons on the accuracy of the statements made before they are published. The press cuttings filed before me are not communiques issued by the Government, with the approval of the Government. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermit relates to the notified route: give due notice to the persons likely to be affected in the manner prescribed in these rules. This rule will have to be read along with s. 68-F, sub-s. 2, which reads: For the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme in respect of a notified area or notified route, the Regional Transport Authority may, by order,- (a) refuse to entertain any application for the renewal of any other permit: (b) cancel any existing permit; (c) modify the terms of any existing permit so as to- (i) render the permit ineffective beyond a specified date: (ii) reduce the number of vehicles authorised to be used under the permit; (iii) curtail the area or route covered by the permit in so far as such permit relates to the notified area or notified route. A combined reading of s. 68F (2) and r. 11 makes it clear that the order contemplated under the said subsection can be made by the Regional 'Transport Authority only after giving due notice to the persons likely to be affected by the said order. On December 24, 1958, the Regional Transport Authority made the following order: The permits of the following buses are rendered in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
