A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case addressed the validity of a road transport nationalisation scheme implemented in Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh, under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as amended by Act 100 of 1956. The appellants, private bus operators, challenged the scheme on the grounds of violation of the doctrine of bias and non-compliance with statutory procedural requirements. Earlier, in a connected matter, the Supreme Court had quashed the approval of the scheme because the Secretary of the Transport Department—a party to the dispute—heard objections, violating the rule that no one should be a judge in their own cause. After remand, the Chief Minister, who was in charge of the Transport portfolio, personally heard objections and approved the scheme. The appellants now argued that the Chief Minister too was disqualified on the same bias principle and that his prior speeches showed prejudgment. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions, distinguishing between the official responsibility of a Minister and the departmental position of a Secretary, holding that the Chief Minister was not part of the statutory undertaking and thus not a “judge in his own cause.” The Court found no legal proof of personal bias from press reports and held that newspaper cuttings could not be treated as legal evidence. The Court also acknowledged a procedural irregularity by the Regional Transport Authority in not giving reasonable notice before cancelling permits under Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, but declined to interfere as it would be a mere technicality without practical benefit, given the implementation of the scheme. The decision reaffirmed that statutory powers must respect principles of natural justice unless expressly excluded by legislation and clarified the limits of bias doctrine in quasi-judicial decision-making by government authorities.

Keywords: Doctrine of Bias, Natural Justice, Motor Vehicles Act, Quasi-Judicial Function, Ministerial Responsibility, Official Bias, Procedural Fairness, Administrative Law, Nationalisation Scheme, Certiorari.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title:
Gullapalli Nageswara Rao & Ors. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeals Nos. 198 to 200 of 1959

iii) Judgment Date:
21 August 1959

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
B.P. Sinha, C.J.; P.B. Gajendragadkar, J.; K. Subba Rao, J.

vi) Author:
Justice K. Subba Rao

vii) Citation:
[1960(1) SCR 580]

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Article 32 & Article 226, Constitution of India

• Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as amended by Act 100 of 1956 — Sections 68D & 68F

• Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, Rule 11

• Madras Government Business Rules and Secretariat Instructions, Rule 9

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
None directly overruled, but earlier stage decided in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation [1959 SCR (Supp.) 319] distinguished.

x) Law Subjects:
Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Transport Law, Principles of Natural Justice, Procedural Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The litigation forms part of a series of challenges to Andhra Pradesh’s decision to nationalise motor transport under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Initially, the approval of the scheme was quashed because the Secretary of the Transport Department heard objections — violating the maxim nemo judex in causa sua. After remand, the Government sought to cure the defect by having the Chief Minister himself hear objections. The appellants alleged that the Chief Minister too was disqualified, given his portfolio and alleged prejudgment of the issue. The case thus tests the application of the doctrine of bias to ministerial decision-making and the permissible extent of “official bias” inherent in statutory functions.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellants were long-standing private bus operators in Krishna District. On the proposal of the General Manager of the State Transport Undertaking, a scheme for complete nationalisation of road transport in certain routes was published under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act. Objections were invited, and the appellants filed objections. In December 1957, the Secretary of the Transport Department gave personal hearing and the Chief Minister approved the scheme, which was notified to take effect from January 10, 1958.

In Gullapalli Nageswara Rao (1959), the Supreme Court quashed the approval, holding that the Secretary was incompetent to hear objections since he was part of the Undertaking.

Following the remand, fresh notices were issued, and the Chief Minister personally heard objectors on December 9, 1958. On December 19, 1958, he rejected objections and approved the scheme as originally proposed. This was published in the Gazette on December 22, 1958. The Regional Transport Authority (RTA), the next day, issued orders rendering existing permits ineffective from December 24, 1958, and directing private operators to cease services from December 25.

The appellants filed writ petitions under Article 226 in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, alleging (1) disqualification of the Chief Minister due to bias, and (2) procedural illegality by RTA in cancelling permits without giving due notice under Rule 11. The High Court dismissed the petitions, leading to these appeals.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the Chief Minister, as Minister-in-charge of Transport, was disqualified from hearing objections to the nationalisation scheme under the doctrine of bias.

2. Whether alleged prior speeches and actions of the Chief Minister demonstrated personal bias or prejudgment.

3. Whether the Regional Transport Authority violated Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules by cancelling permits without giving reasonable prior notice.

4. Whether such procedural irregularity justified interference under Article 226 despite full implementation of the scheme.

F) PETITIONERS’ ARGUMENTS

The appellants contended:

• The principle from Gullapalli Nageswara Rao (1959) applied equally to the Chief Minister, as he was the Minister in charge of Transport and therefore interested in the cause, rendering him a “judge in his own cause.”

• The Chief Minister initiated and promoted the nationalisation scheme and made public speeches affirming its implementation, which showed closed mind and bias against private operators. Newspaper cuttings of his speeches were submitted as evidence.

• The RTA’s cancellation of permits violated Rule 11, which mandated reasonable prior notice to affected operators before eliminating services, rendering the order void.

G) RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS

The State countered:

• There is a distinction between official bias arising from statutory duties and personal bias. The Chief Minister’s role in approving a policy did not disqualify him unless personal animus or pecuniary interest was shown.

• Press reports were unreliable and not legal proof; no affidavits from witnesses were filed to substantiate that the Chief Minister actually made the alleged prejudicial statements.

• On the date of hearing, the Road Transport Corporation was an autonomous body distinct from the Government, hence no conflict of interest existed.

• Even if Rule 11 notice was inadequate, the implementation of the scheme made interference futile and a mere technical exercise.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

• Section 68D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 — Approval/modification of scheme by State Government after hearing objections.

• Section 68F(2), Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 — Power of RTA to cancel or modify permits to give effect to approved scheme.

• Rule 11, Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules — Requirement of prior notice before cancellation/modification of permits.

• Article 14, Constitution of India — Equality before law, relevant to natural justice.

• Maxims: nemo judex in causa sua, justice should not only be done but manifestly appear to be done.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

• The doctrine of bias applies to both judicial and quasi-judicial functions, but a Minister is not disqualified merely because of official policy responsibility.

• The Chief Minister is not part of the Transport Undertaking; unlike a Secretary, he is only politically responsible for the department. Hence, hearing objections did not make him a judge in his own cause.

• Press reports are not admissible proof unless substantiated by direct evidence. Allegations of prejudgment must be established with cogent evidence, which was lacking here.

• Rule 11 was breached as the RTA gave no reasonable prior notice before cancelling permits; however, this irregularity was a technicality without practical consequence since the scheme had been fully implemented.

b. Obiter Dicta

• In India, unlike England, Parliament’s power is subject to fundamental rights; statutory provisions authorising bias would be unconstitutional unless they satisfy constitutional scrutiny.

• The Court distinguished official bias inherent in statutory roles from personal bias, noting that the former does not automatically disqualify a decision-maker.

c. Guidelines Laid Down

1. Ministers acting in quasi-judicial capacity are not disqualified merely due to portfolio responsibility unless personal bias is shown.

2. Newspaper reports of statements are insufficient to prove bias unless corroborated by admissible evidence.

3. Procedural rules requiring notice must be substantially complied with, but relief may be denied if it serves no practical purpose after full execution of the impugned action.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment carefully balances administrative efficiency with natural justice safeguards. It reinforces that bias must be established with clear evidence and that official responsibility for a policy does not equal personal disqualification. It also underlines judicial pragmatism—courts may withhold relief where procedural breach is established but would lead to no effective remedy. This decision remains a leading authority on the application of bias doctrine to ministerial decisions in India.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, [1959 SCR (Supp.) 319]

2. The King v. Bath Compensation Authority, [1925] 1 K.B. 685; reversed [1926] A.C. 586

3. The King v. Leicester Justices, [1927] 1 K.B. 557

b. Important Statutes Referred

• Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as amended by Act 100 of 1956 — Sections 68D, 68F

• Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, Rule 11

• Constitution of India, Articles 14, 32, 226

• Madras Government Business Rules and Secretariat Instructions, Rule 9