1959 (8) TMI 42 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether, when a statute confers a power on an authority and imposes a duty on it to be a judge of its own cause or to decide a dispute in which it has an official bias, the doctrine of bias is qualified to the extent of the statutory authorization? Whether the Chief Minister by his acts and speeches disqualified himself to act for the State Government in deciding the dispute Held that - The entire scheme of the Act visualises, in case of conflict between the Undertaking and the operators of private buses, that the State Government should sit in judgment and resolve the conflict. The Act, therefore, does not authorise the State Government to act in derogation of the principles of natural justice.We cannot, 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. We hold that the Chief Minister was not disqualified to hear the objections against the scheme of nationalisation. The judgment of this Court conclusively decided 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 As their vehicles have already been withdrawn from the routes and replaced by the vehicles of the Corporation, the effect of any such order would not only be of any help to the appellant but would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.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disqualification of the Chief Minister on grounds of bias.
2. Compliance with Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules regarding notice before canceling permits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disqualification of the Chief Minister on Grounds of Bias:

The appellants contended that the Chief Minister was disqualified from hearing objections to the nationalization scheme due to bias. They argued that the Chief Minister, being in charge of the Transport Department and having initiated the scheme, was "a judge in his own cause." They cited the principle that "no man shall be a judge in his own cause," emphasizing that justice should not only be done but also appear to be done. The appellants also referred to speeches made by the Chief Minister, which they claimed demonstrated a bias against private bus operators.

The respondents countered that there is a distinction between "official bias," inherent in statutory duties, and "personal bias." They argued that the Chief Minister's support for the policy of nationalization did not disqualify him unless personal bias was proven, which was not established.

The Court examined the principles governing the doctrine of bias, noting that any interest, financial or otherwise, that creates a reasonable suspicion of bias disqualifies a judge. The Court also considered whether statutory authorization could qualify the doctrine of bias. It referred to English cases, such as *The King v. Bath Compensation Authority* and *The King v. Leicester Justices*, to illustrate that statutory duties do not override the principles of natural justice unless explicitly stated by the legislature.

In this case, the Court found no statutory provision authorizing the Government to act in derogation of natural justice principles. The Court distinguished between the Secretary of the Transport Department and the Chief Minister, emphasizing that the Chief Minister is not part of the department but is responsible for its business. The previous judgment had disqualified the Secretary but not the Chief Minister, and the appellants did not challenge the Chief Minister's role at that time.

Regarding the alleged bias from the Chief Minister's speeches, the Court found no evidence proving that the Chief Minister made the statements attributed to him. Newspaper reports were not considered legal evidence without affidavits from witnesses. Consequently, the Court held that the Chief Minister was not disqualified from hearing the objections.

2. Compliance with Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules:

The appellants argued that the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) violated Rule 11 by not giving due notice before canceling their permits. Rule 11 requires the RTA to give due notice to affected persons before making orders that render permits ineffective.

The Court noted that the RTA made the order on December 24, 1958, and communicated it to the appellants on the same day, directing them to stop plying their buses from December 25, 1958. The Court found two defects in the RTA's procedure: (i) the order was made before giving notice, and (ii) the notice given was not reasonable, as it allowed only one day for compliance.

Despite these procedural defects, the Court agreed with the High Court's decision not to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellants had already withdrawn their vehicles, and the Corporation's vehicles were plying on the routes. Setting aside the RTA's order would be an "empty formality" and introduce unnecessary complications. The Court concluded that interfering on a technical point of no practical utility was unwarranted.

Conclusion:

The appeals were dismissed without costs, affirming that the Chief Minister was not disqualified from hearing objections and that the procedural defects in the RTA's notice did not warrant judicial intervention.