9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (10) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the then Minister in charge of Transport Mr. S. P. B. Pattalhi Rama Rao, heard the said objections and ultimately approved the schemes with certain minor modifications on the 18th October, 1960. In the result, he ordered that the schemes should come into force on the dates specified in the Government Orders. These schemes were duly notified under G. O. Ms. Nos. 2230 to 2239 in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 27th October, 1960. It is against the order passed by the Minister on the 18th October, 1960 that the five writ petitions were directed. 2. In their writ petitions, the respondents challenged the validity of the impugned order on serveral grounds. They urged that the initial publication of the proposed schemes under S. 68C was invalid, because they failed to give particulars as to the dates on which the respective schemes would be put into force. According to the respondents, failure to notify the said dates had virtually deprived them of adequate opportunity to file their objections. It was also contended by them that the impugned order empowered the Chief Executive Officer to carry out the schemes piecemeal, and that rendered the order invalid. Certain o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter. 4. Before dealing with this point, it is necessary to set out the material facts on which the plea of bias was based. These facts centre round the attempt alleged to have been made by the Minister to get the assistance of Ramakotaiah in the matter of the election of the Election Committee of the Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee which had been fixed for the 28th August, 1960. At the relevant time, the Council of Ministers in the State of Andhra Pradesh was divided into two hostile groups. One group was known as the power group or the Ministerial group, and the other group in opposition was known as the United Front group. The Minister in charge of Transport, who will be described hereafter as the Minister, was one of the leading members of the power group. In fact, he was one of the candidates who contested a seat on the Election Committee. As often happens, in view of the keen rivalry between the two groups, before the date of the election arrived, both camps had begun extensive canvassing activity. The petitioner company in W. P. No. 868 of 1960 is known as Sri Satyanarayana Transport (Private) Ltd., Guntur, and Ramakotaiah is its Managing Director. The case for this com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27th August, but could not persuade them to accept the request of the Minister. They had already committed themselves to the United Front and they were not prepared to change their mind. Ramakotaiah informed the Minister about his inability to carry out his mission. Then the Elections followed on the 28th August and the Minister was defeated at the said elections. Thereafter, the Minister heard the objections on the 3rd September and passed the impugned order on the 18th October, 1960. 7. Shortly stated, the effect of the modifications made by the Minister in the ten schemes as they had been serially printed as the proposed schemes in the Gazette, was that scheme No. 1 became 7, No. 2 became No. 8, No. 3 became No. 9, No. 4 became No. 1, No. 5 became No. 2, No. 6 retained its place, No. 7 became No. 4, No. 8 became No. 3, No. 9 became No. 5, and No. 10 retained its place. The three schemes in which Ramakotaiah's Company was concerned were Nos. 4, 7 and 9 and all these have been promoted to earlier places. According to Ramakotaiah, this has been deliberately done with a view to cause grave financial loss to his Company. 8. One of the arguments which was urged on behalf of Rama ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alled upon to try, that again would introduce the infirmity of bias and could disqualify him from trying the cause. In dealing with cases of bias, it is necessary to remember that "no one can act in a judicial capacity if his previous conduct gives round for believing that he cannot act with an open mind" The broad principle which is universally accepted is that a person trying a cause even in quasi-judicial proceedings, must not only act fairly, but must be able to act above suspicion of unfairness. As was observed in Franklin v. Minister of Town and Country Planning, [1947] K.B. 702, "the use of the word 'bias should be confined to its sphere. Its proper significance is to denote a departure from the standard of evenhanded justice which the law requires from those who occupy judicial office or those who are commonly regarded as holding a quasi-judicial office, such as an arbitrator. The reason for this clearly is that having to adjudicate as between two or more parties, he must come to his adjudication or bias towards one side or the other in dispute" That being the true position in law about personal bias, there would be no. difficulty in holding that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t bias against the Minister. 11. The question thus raised for our decision lies within a very narrow compass. Both parties have filed affidavits in support of their respective contentions, and the ultimate decision would inevitaibly depend upon the question as to which of the affidavits deserve to be believed. The High Court has held that the affidavits filed on behalf of Ramakotaiah are satisfactory, and the replies given by the Minister on material points of dispute are evasive and unsatisfactory. The question thus is one of appreciating affidavit-evidence; and normally, this Court would be relunctant to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the High Court on such affidavit evidence. But the High Court itself has given a certificate to the appellants, and that shows that the High Court thought it necessary in the interests of justice that the appellants should be given a chance to vindicate their position before us. Where, as in the present case, the result of the finding of fact as to bias affects the status of a person holding a high public office in the discharge of his duties as a quasi-judicial tribunal, the question about his bias needs to be carefully examined b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pradesh at the relevant time, it is again not unlikely that everyone of the important members of the two groups would try his utmost to collect as much support as he could in the cause of his group. It is well-known that when a person enters the arena of political elections, he cannot afford to stand on his own dignity or status and must stoop to conquer, and that means anyone who can bring votes assumes importance at the time of election contests. The evidence on the record clearly shows that the rivalry between the two opposing groups had reached such a stage that it would not be unreasonable to assume that canvassing for votes was proceeding apace on a very large scale. That is the background in the light of which the relevant allegations made by the parties have to be judged. 15. We ought, however, to add that in the light of the general considerations which we have set out, it is of utmost importance that in appreciating evidence, the Court ought to adopt a very cautious, circumspect, and careful approach. If the evidence led by the parties in such a case is tested by cross-examination, it would be easier lo determine where truth lies. But in the absence of cross-examination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated by Ramakotiah in similarly involved words. But these statements go to mean that the Minister's wife's cousin's husband was Bhujaiah's uncle. It is no. doubt a distant relationship. But the point on which the High Court has commented is the manner in which the Minister has chosen to deny this allegation. In his first affidavit made on the 12th December, 1960, the Minister stated that he did not even know Bhujaiah; and when the relationship was brought out in an additional affidavit, he made a further affidavit on the 10th January, 1961 and stated that he was not in a position to accept or deny the relationship mentioned by Bhujaiah. The affidavit of the Minister further added that "the relationship even as mentioned by him, is so very remote and far- fetched, namely, that my wife's father's brother's daughter's husband is the brother-in-law of Bhujaiah's aunt. Whether it is paternal or maternal aunt is not stated or known" It is remarkable that while making the plea that the relationship is very distant, the Minister did not choose to make a positive averment that Bhujaiah was not related to him in any manner. If the relationship c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was 6.27 A.M. and the connecting time was 7.23 A.M. The call was PP call, the person being the Minister himself, and the duration of the call was three minutes. It was suggested by the Minister that the trunk call may have been made not by Ramakotaiah, but by one or the other of the partners of the firm. This has been effectively met by the affidavit produced by Ramakotaiah which show that at the relevant time, Ramakotaiah alone could have made the trunk call. 20. Then, it was stated by the Minister that the fact that a trunk call was booked to his number, does not mean that Ramakotaiah talked to the Minister himself. It may be, it was suggested on behalf of the Minister, that Ramakotaiah may have talked to his Personal Assistant. As we have just indicated, the trunk call was connected at 7.23 A. M. and if the Minister's case was that either his Personal Assistant or somebody else in the family had received the trunk call and he did not know anything about it, it would not have been difficult for the Minister to produce an affidavit of his Personal Assistant or anyone else who received the said trunk call. To say that a Minister receives so many trunk calls everyday that it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... until the 26th August. In fact, as we will presently point out, after Ramakotaiah met the Minister, he tried to persuade his five friends to vote for the Minister and met them in that connection on the 26th and 27th August. It is well-known that when members meet on the eve of an election, intensive canvassing goes on on a very large scale; and so, if Ramakotaiah thought that no. useful purpose would be served by meeting the Minister earlier than the 26th August, it cannot be said that his conduct is so improbable as to render the rest of his story unbelievable. Besides, as we have just indicated, Ramakotaiah is shown to have met the Minister on the 26th August and that has its own significance. 22. That takes us to the next stage in the story which relates to the efforts made by Ramakotaiah to secure votes for the Minister from his five friends whom we have already mentioned. This part of Ramakotaiah's story is based on his own affidavits and the affidavits made by Anjaneyulu, Venkateshwarulu, Kasi Rama Rao and Basivi Reddi. All these four persons were admittedly members of the Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee at the relevant time, and they all refer to the talk they had wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
