TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1959 (8) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cessary to recapitulate briefly the facts relevant to the present enquiry: The appellants were carrying on motor transport business for several years in Krishna District in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Shri Guru Pershad, styled as the General Manager of the State Transport Undertaking of the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport, published a scheme for nationalization of motor transport in the said State from the date to be notified by the State Government. Objections to the said proposed scheme were invited by the State Government, and the appellants, among others, filed their objections. On December 26, 1957, the Secretary in charge of the Transport Department gave a personal hearing to the objectors and heard the representations made on behalf of the State Transport Undertaking. The entire material gathered by him was placed before the Chief Minister of the State in charge of transport who made the order approving the scheme. The approved scheme was published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated January 9, 1958, and it was directed to come into force with effect from January 10, 1958. Thereafter the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, which was formed under the provisions of the R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us: ([1959] S.C.R. (SUPPL.) 319) This Court held in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation that the Secretary in charge of the Transport Department was disqualified from deciding the dispute between the Department and the private bus operators on the basis of the principle that a party cannot be a judge in his own cause, and that, as the Chief Minister was in charge of the portfolio of transport, the same infirmity attached to him also, and, therefore, for the same reason he should also be disqualified from hearing the objections to the scheme published by the Undertaking; and (2) the Chief Minister by his acts, such as initiating the scheme, and speeches showed a clear bias in favour of the Undertaking and against the private bus operators and therefore on the basis of the principles of natural justice accepted by this Court, he was precluded from deciding the dispute between the said parties. The learned Advocate-General sought to make out a distinction between " official bias " of an authority which is inherent in a statutory duty imposed on it and " personal bias " of the said authority in favour of, or against, one of the parties and conte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lt the compensation authority refused the renewal subject to payment of compensation. It may be mentioned that a majority of the justices who sat on the compensation tribunal and voted against the renewal of the licence had as members of the licensing committee been parties to the resolution referring the question of renewal to the compensation authority. The Court of Appeal by a majority, Atkin, L. J., dissenting, held that in view of the provi- sions of the Licensing Act, 1910, the facts in that case did not disclose such bias or likelihood of bias as would disqualify them from sitting on the tribunal. This decision was reversed by the House of Lords on appeal (reported in 1926 A.C. 586). The House of Lords held that the decision of the tribunal, whereon three justices who referred the matter to the said authority sat, must be set aside on the ground that no one can both be a party and a judge in the same cause, Viscount Cave, L.C., meets the argument based upon the statutory duty thus at p. 592: " No doubt the statute contemplates the possibility of the licensing justices appearing before the compensation authority and taking part in the argument; for it is provided by s. 19, s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prescribed by the legislature. These decisions show that in England a statutory invasion of the common law objection on the ground of bias is tolerated by decisions, but the invasion is confined strictly to the limits of the statutory exception. It is not out of place here to notice that in England the Parliament is supreme and therefore a statutory law, however repugnant to the principles of natural justice, is valid; whereas in India the law made by Parliament or a State Legislature should stand the test of fundamental rights declared in Part III of the Constitution. In the instant case the relevant provisions of the Act do not sanction any dereliction of the principles of natural justice. Under the Act a statutory authority, called the Transport Undertaking, is created and specified statutory functions are conferred on it. The said Undertaking prepares a scheme providing for road transport service in relation to an area to be run or operated by the said Undertaking. Any person affected by the Scheme is required to file objections before the State Government and the State Government, after receiving the objections and representations, gives a personal hearing to the objectors as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....66 of the Constitution the Governor of Madras made rules styled as " The Madras Government Business Rules and Secretariat Instructions", and r. 9 thereof prescribes that without prejudice to the provisions of r. 7, the Minister in charge of a department shall be primarily responsible for the disposal of the business pertaining to that department. The Governor of Andhra,in exercise of the powers under the Constitution, directed that until other provisions are made in this regard the business of the Government of Andhra shall be transacted in accordance with the said Rules. It is, therefore, manifest that under the Constitution and the Rules framed thereunder a Minister in charge of a department is primarily responsible for the disposal of the business pertaining to that department, but the ultimate responsibility for the advice is on the entire ministry. But the position of the Secretary of a department is different. Under the said Rules, the Secretary of a department is its head i.e., he is part of the department. There is an essential distinction between the functions of a Secretary and a Minister; the former is a part of the department and the latter is only primarily responsible....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the said paragraph says: " The contention that the Chief Minister is not competent, to give the hearing and consider the objections inasmuch as he is biassed and has also prejudged the issue, is not well- founded. On facts on 9-12-1958, there was no Road Transport Department at all but a Road Transport Corporation, which is a completely autonomous body, with which the Chief Minister has no concern. Hence on the date of the enquiry, the Corporation being a completely autonomous body is an entirely independent body altogether and hence there can be no question of bias to the Chief Minister hearing the objectors. The bearing given by the Chief Minister is just like a hearing of the court of law after remand by a Superior Court....................... The allegation that the Chief Minister had closed his mind and was biased is absolutely baseless. He kept an open mind and considered all the objections fully." The counter-affidavit further gives in detail how the scheme was initiated by Guru Pershad and how the various steps were taken in compliance with the provisions of the Act. It is therefore clear that the Government did not accept the allegations made by the appellants in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....." This speech has a direct reference to the nationalisation of bus transport in Krishna District and indicates a firm determination on the part of the Chief Minister not to postpone it any further. Exhibit IX is an extract from the report in the Indian Express dated December 13, 1957 and it reads: " The Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Sanjeeva Reddy told pressmen here to-day that the State Government would go ahead with the implementation of its decision to extend nationalisation of bus transport to Krishna district from April I next." This also indicates the Chief Minister's determination to implement the scheme of nationalisation of bus transport in Krishna District from a particular date. Exhibit X is a report in the Mail under date April 1, 1958, purporting to be a speech made by the Chief Minister in inaugurating the first phase of the extension of the nationalised road transport services to Guntur and Krishna Districts by the State Road Transport Corporation. Relevant extracts of the speech read thus: " He (the Chief Minister) considered the implementation of the scheme simple first, but he regretted to find it difficult since bus operators filed writ petitions in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er did not accept the correctness of the statements attributed to him in the newspapers, no attempt was made by the appellants to file any affidavit in the High Court sworn to by persons who had attended the meetings addressed by the Chief Minister and heard him making the said statements. In the circumstances, it must be held that it has not been established by the appellants that the Chief Minister made the speeches indicating his closed mind on the subject of nationalisation of bus transport in Krishna District. If these newspaper cuttings are excluded from evidence, the factual basis for the appellants' argument disappears. We, therefore, hold that the Chief Minister was not disqualified to hear the objections against the scheme of nationali- sation. A subsidiary argument is raised on the basis of r. 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules. It is contended that the Road Transport Authority made an order rendering that the permits of the appellants ineffective without giving them due notice as required by that rule and therefore the said order was invalid. Rule 11 of the said Rules reads: " In giving effect to the approved scheme, the Regional Transport Authority or A....