• Administrative

• Quasi-judicial function
classification of • Legislative
functions
 Indian
• Whether the Election Commission, in exercise of its powers under
National 29A of the Act, acts administratively or quasi-judicially?

Congress v. • Test

Institute of • "Where—(a) a statutory authority empowered under a statute to

do any act (b) which would prejudicially affect the subject (c)
Social Workers although there is no lis or two contending parties and the contest is
between the authority and the subject and (d) the statutory
authority is required to act judicially under the statute, the decision
(2002) SC of the said authority is quasi-judicial".
 • Fairness
• ‘fair play in action’

Natural Justice • Enabling

• British origins:
• Ridge v. Baldwin

• Originally:
• Nobody shall be condemned unheard (audi alteram partem ).
• Nobody shall be a judge in his own cause (nemo debet esse judex in
propria sua causa ).
 • When can a person claim a right to a hearing?
• Lis Inter Partes
• Authority v. Individual
• Article 311(2)
• “(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or
reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed
Natural of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of
being heard in respect of those charges Provided that where it is

Justice: Right proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such
penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during
such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any
to Hearing opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed:”
• Before who?
 • Service law
• Government of Orissa determined the date of birth of the first
respondent as April 16, 1907, and declared that she should be
deemed to have retired on April 16, 1962
• ‘fundamental rules of our constitutional set-up’
State of Orissa • Nullity
v. Dr. Binapani, • Even an administrative order which involves civil consequences
AIR 1967 SC
1269
 Bihar School
Examination • S. 6(2) of the Bihar School Examinations Board Act

Board vs • S.9(3) of the Bihar School Examinations Board Act

• Case of mass cheating at one centre
Subhas • Should all candidates be given an opportunity ?
Chandra Sinha

1970 AIR 1269

 • Principle of audi alteram partem
• Many components :
• Notice
• Elements of a Valid Notice
• Hearing must happen
• Oral
• Written
‘Fair Hearing’ • Disclosure of materials to the party
• Summoning of Witnesses
• Opportunity to Cross-examine Witnesses
• Right to a lawyer/representation
• Reasoned decisions
• Records & Reports
 •Contents of show cause notice
•Basing on the report of the Invigilator, the University authorities had
issued show-cause notice, dated 1-7-1994 seeking explanation from
the petitioner on the following ground:
G. Kondala •“The candidate was not having his Section II question paper. When
Rao v. questioned, he answered that somebody has taken it away from him.
When it was found with Mr. P. Venkat Rao, Reg. No. 1935131, he said
that he had committed a mistake. He refused either to disclose his
Registrar, Shri address or show his hall-ticket and stated that he can be booked and
debarred”
Venkateswara •the show-cause notice which is issued to the petitioner seeking his
explanation, fails to disclose the principal allegation against the
University, AIR petitioner that the petitioner had incorporated all answers on the
back side of the question paper and passed on the same to Mr.
Venkat Rao which action is intended to help him to write correct
1995 AP 338 answers. Having failed to indicate the principal allegation in the
show-cause notice, I am afraid, I cannot accept the contention of Sri
Harinath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents,
when he says that mere failure to indicate the allegation may not
vitiate the show-cause notice.
 • Sexual Harassment of girls at a University
Hira Nath • Right of hearing and cross-examination, right to report
Mishra And •Rules of natural justice cannot remain the same applying to all
Ors. vs The conditions
• “However unsavoury the procedure may appear to a. judicial
Principal, mind, these are facts of life which are to be faced. The girls who
Rajendra were molested that night would not have come forward to give
evidence in any regular enquiry and if a strict enquiry like the one
Medical conducted in a court of law were to be imposed in such matters,
the girls would have had to go under the constant fear of
college molestation by the male students who were capable of such
indecencies. Under the circumstances the course followed by the
Principal was a wise one.”

AIR 1973 SC
1260
 • Section 19(N) of the Kerala University Act, the control over the
discipline of the students is vested with the Syndicate of the
Suresh Koshy University. Clause (V) of that section empowers the Syndicate to
delegate any of its powers to the Vice-Chancellor.
v. University of • Rules are not statutory?
Kerala, AIR • No report provided, not asked for
1969 SC 198 • Waiver/Estoppel
 • Tenth Schedule was introduced in the Constitution by the
Constitution (Fifty- second Amendment) Act, 1985.
• Goa Legislative Assembly (Disqualification on Grounds of Defection)
Rules, 1986
• Rule 7 says:
Quality of •7. Procedure.-
hearing: Ravi •(2) If the petition does not comply with the requirements of Rule 6,
the Speaker shall dismiss the petition and intimate the petitioner
S. Naik v. accordingly.
•(3)If the petition complies with the requirements of Rule 6, the
Union of Speaker shall cause copies of the petition and of the annexures
thereto to be forwarded,-
India, AIR •(a) to the member in. relation to whom the petition has been made;
and
1994 SC 1558 •(b) where such member belongs to any legislature party and such
petition has not been made by the leader thereof, also to such leader,
and such member or leader shall within seven days of the receipt of
such copies, or within such further period as the Speaker may for
sufficient cause allow, forward his comments in writing thereon to
the Speaker."
Right to legal • Right of legal representation: Is there an absolute right?
•Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952
representatio • "7. (5) Where the punishing authority itself enquires into any charge or
chargers of appoints an enquiry officer for holding enquiry against a
n: J.K. person in the service of the government, it may, by an order, appoint a
government servant or a legal practitioner to be known as a "presenting
Aggarwal vs officer to present on its behalf the case, in support of the charge or
charges the person against whom a charge is being enquired into, shall be
allowed to obtain the assistance of a government servant, if he so
Haryana desires, in order to produce his defence before the enquiring officer. If
the charge or charges are likely to result in the dismissal of the person
Seeds from the service of the government. Such person may, with the sanction
of the enquiry officer, be represented by counsel."

Development • Rule vests a discretion

• How should it be exercised?

1991 AIR 1221

 ◦ “Keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of
natural justice, we are of the opinion, that the requirement to
record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of
natural justice which govern exercise of power by
Reasoned administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not
embodied rules. The extent of their application depends upon
orders: SN the particular statutory framework whereunder jurisdiction
has been conferred on the administrative authority. With
regard to the exercise of a particular power by an
Mukherjee v. administrative authority including exercise of judicial or quasi-
judicial functions the legislature, while conferring the said
Union of power, may feel that it would not be in the larger public
interest that the reasons for the order passed by the
India, AIR administrative authority be recorded in the order and be
communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense
1990 SC with such a requirement…. It must be concluded that except in
cases where the requirement has been dispensed with
expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative
authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is
required to record the reasons for its decision.”
 • The petitioner's passport dated June 1, 1976 was impounded "in
Post public interest" by an order dated July 2, 1977 of the Government of
India
decisional • No hearing provided
• What is post decisional hearing?
hearing: • The audi alteram partem rule is sufficiently flexible to permit
Maneka modifications and variations to suit the exigencies of myriad kinds of
situations which may arise.

Gandhi v.
Union of
India, (1978) 1
SCC 248
 • Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949
• (6) (a) A copy of the scheme prepared by the Reserve Bank shall be sent in draft to the
Post banking company and also to the transferee bank and any other banking company
concerned in the amalgamation, for suggestions and objections, if any, within such
period as the Reserve Bank may specify for this purpose;
decisional • (b) the Reserve Bank may make such modifications, if any, in the draft scheme as it
may consider necessary in the light of the suggestions and objections received from
hearing:K. I. the banking company and also from the transferee bank, and any other banking
company concerned in the amalgamation and from any members, depositors or other
creditors of each of those companies and the transferee bank
Shepherd v. • (7) The scheme shall thereafter be placed before the Central Government for its
sanction and the Central Government may sanction the scheme without any
Union of modifications or with such modifications as it may consider necessary; and the scheme
as sanctioned by the Central Government may specify in this behalf:

India, (1987) 4 • Right of hearing of employees not taken over to new merged entitiy
• Would post decisional hearing fix it?
SCC 431
 • PD hearing Not a substitute for Pre hearing

Post
decisional
hearing:
Canara Bank v.
V. K. Awasthy,
(2005) 6 SCC
321
 • The Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951
• On April 13, 1978, the Government of India in exercise of its power
under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 18AA of the IDR Act,
passed an order which reads as follows:
Swadeshi “O 265(E)/18AA/IDRA/78-Whereas the Central Government is satisfied from the
documentary and other evidence in its possession, that the persons in charge of
the industrial undertakings namely,
Cotton Mills v. …Swadeshi Cotton Mills….

Union of have, by creation of encumbrances on the assets of the said industrial

undertakings, brought about a situation which has affected and is likely to
further affect the production of articles manufactured or produced in the said
India, (1981) 1 industrial undertakings and that immediate action is necessary to prevent such a
situation;”

SCC 664 Now, therefore, in exercise of power conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of
Section 18AA of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (65 of
1951), the Central Government hereby authorises the National Textile
Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Authorised person) to take
over the management of the whole of the said industrial undertakings, subject
to the following terms and conditions…”
 • 1[18AA. Power to take over industrial undertakings without
investigation under certain circumstances.—
•(1) Without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, if, from the
documentary or other evidence in its possession, the Central
Swadeshi Government is satisfied, in relation to an industrial undertaking, that—

Cotton Mills v. •(a) the persons in charge of such industrial undertaking have, by reckless
investments or creation of incumbrances on the assets of the industrial
Union of undertaking, or by diversion of funds, brought about a situation which is
likely to affect the production of articles manufactured or produced in
India, (1981) 1 the industrial undertaking, and that immediate action is necessary to
prevent such a situation; or…. it may, by a notified order, authorise any
SCC 664 person or body of persons (hereafter referred to as the “authorised
person”) to take over the management of the whole or any part of the
industrial undertaking or to exercise in respect of the whole or any part
of the undertaking such functions of control as may be specified in the
order.”
 • Whether in construing Section 18AA of the Industries (Development
and Regulation) Act, 1951, as a pure question of law compliance with
the principle of audi alteram partem is to be implied If so,
(a) whether such hearing is to be given to the parties who would be
Swadeshi affected by the order to be passed under the said Section prior to the
passing of the order; or
Cotton Mills v. (b) whether such hearing is to be given after the passing of the order;
Union of and

India, (1981) 1 (c) if prior hearing is to be normally given and the order passed under the
said Section is vitiated by not giving of such hearing whether such vice
can be cured by the grant of a subsequent hearing."
SCC 664
 •The Bench by a majority answered the three questions as
•follows:-
• (a) Section 18AA(1)(a)(b) excludes the giving of prior hearing
to the party who would be
Swadeshi affected by order thereunder.
• (b) Section 18-F expressly provides for a post-
Cotton Mills v. decisional hearing to the owner of the industrial
Union of undertaking, the management of which is
over under section 18AA to have the order made
taken

India, (1981) 1 under section 18AA cancelled on any relevant ground.

•(c) As the taking over of management under section 18A is not
SCC 664 vitiated by the failure to grant prior hearing
the question of any such vice being cured by a
grant of a subsequent hearing does not arise.
 • Conversely, if the statute conferring the power is silent with
regard to the giving of a pre-decisional hearing to the person
affected and the administrative decision taken by the authority
involves civil consequences of a grave nature, and no full review
Swadeshi or appeal on merits against that decision is provided, courts will
be extremely reluctant to construe such a statute as excluding the
Cotton Mills v. duty of affording even a minimal hearing, shorn of all its formal
trappings and dilatory features at the pre-decisional stage,
Union of unless, viewed pragmatically, it would paralyse the
administrative process or frustrate the need for utmost
India, (1981) 1 promptitude. In short, this rule of fair play ‘must not be jettisoned
SCC 664 save in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive
necessity so demands. The court must make every effort to
salvage this cardinal rule to the maximum extent possible, with
situational modifications.”
 • An impediment in the way of fair decision-making process
• Leaning of mind, prepossession, inclination, propensity towards an
object, bent of mind
• “..that in the case of quasi-judicial proceedings, the authority
empowered to decide the dispute between opposing parties must be
one without bias towards one side or other in the dispute. It is also a
matter fundamental importance that a person interested in one
party or the other should not, even formally, take part in the
proceedings though in fact he does not influence the mind of the
person, who finally decides the case. This is on the principle that
justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and
Bias undoubtedly be seen to be done. ..”
• Elements:
• No man shall be the judge in his own case
• Justice should not only be done but undoubtedly be seen to be done
• Types:
• Pecuniary bias
• Official bias
• Personal bias
 • Chapter IV-A in the Motor Vehicles Act – Amendment
• Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation
• Scheme of nationalization of bus transport
Official bias: • Section 68D(2) of the Act

Gullapalli • Issues:
Nageswara Rao • the State Government in approving the scheme was discharging a quasi-
judicial act and therefore the Government should have given a personal
v. APSRTC case hearing to the objectors instead of entrusting that duty to its Secretary
• A judicial hearing implies that the same person hears and gives the decision.
I: AIR 1959 SC But in this case the hearing is given by the Secretary and the decision by the
Chief Minister
• Even if the hearing given by the Secretary be deemed to be a hearing given
308 by the State Government, the hearing is vitiated by the fact that the
Secretary who gave the hearing is the Secretary in charge of the Transport
Department. The Transport Department, it is stated, in effect was made the
judge of its own cause, and this offends one of the fundamental principles
of judicial procedure
 “..that in the case of quasi-judicial proceedings, the
authority empowered to decide the dispute between
opposing parties must be one without bias towards one
Gullapalli side or other in the dispute. It is also a matter fundamental
importance that a person interested in one party or the
Nageswara Rao other should not, even formally, take part in the
v. APSRTC case proceedings though in fact he does not influence the mind
of the person, who finally decides the case. This is on the
I: AIR 1959 SC principle that justice should not only be done, but should
308 manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The
hearing given by the Secretary, Transport Department,
certainly offends the said principle of natural justice and
the proceeding and the hearing given, in violation of that
principle, are bad.”
 • Appeals
• “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.”
• Whether, when a statute confers a power on an authority and
Gullapalli imposes a duty on it to be a judge of its own cause or to decided
a dispute in which it has an official bias, the doctrine of bias is
Nageswara Rao qualified to the extent of the statutory authorization ?
v. APSRTC case II
AIR 1959 SC
1376
 Official bias: • Police Act, 1861 (Act V of 1861)
State of Uttar
• Witness is also a judge
Pradesh v.
Mohammad • What is the test?
Nooh AIR 1958
SC 86
 • Scheme of selection of library books
• Admin directions
Pecuniary bias: • Flood, Cyclones and funds from Centre to be used in a time
J. Mohapatra bound fashion
• Authors of books on selection committee
and Co v. State • How is it pecuniary bias?
of Orissa AIR • How to avoid it?
• Mere non-participation?
1984 SC 1572 • Actual bias vs possibility of bias
• Doctrine of necessity
• Does it apply here?
• Guidelines laid down
 • Tribunal must be able to act judicially

• Test: ‘whether a litigant could reasonably apprehend’

Personal bias: • Proceedings before the tribunal appointed under the Bar Councils
Manak Lal v. Dr. Act.
◦ S. 10(2) of the Bar Councils Act
Prem Chand AIR
1957 SC 425 • Actual bias does not have to be proved

◦ Criticism ?
 • In pursuance of the power given under Section 3 of the All India Services
Act 1951, rules for the recruitment to the Indian Forest Service were
made in 1966 i.e. Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966. See
Rule 4(1) which reads :
“As soon as may be, after the commencement of these rules, the Central
Government may recruit to the service any person from amongst the
members of the State Forest Service adjudged suitable in accordance with
such Regulations as the Central Government may make in consultation with
A.K. Kraipak v. the State Governments and the Commission.”
Union of India, ◦ Regulation 3 provides for the Constitution of a special selection board. It
says that for the purpose of making selection to State cadre, the Central
AIR 1970 SC 150 Government shall constitute a special selection board consisting of the
Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission or his nominee, the
Inspector General of Forests of the Government of India, an officer of the
Government of India not below the rank of Joint Secretary, the Chief
Secretary to the State Government concerned or the Secretary of that
Government dealing with the forests and the Chief Conservator of Forests
of the State Government concerned
 • Regulation 5 deals with the preparation of the list of suitable candidates:
• (1) The Board shall prepare, in the order of preference, a list of such officers of State Forest
Service who satisfy the conditions specified in Regulation 4 and who are adjudged by the
Board suitable for appointment to posts in the senior and junior scales of the Service.
• (2) The list prepared in accordance with Sub-regulation (1) shall then be referred to the
Commission for advice, by the Central Government along with :-
• (a) the records of all officers of State Forest Service included in the list;
• (b) the records of all other eligible officers of the State Forest Service who are not adjudged

A.K. Kraipak v. suitable for inclusion in the list, together with the reasons as recorded by the Board for their
non-inclusion in the list; and
• (c) the observations, if any, of the Ministry of Home Affairs on the recommendations of the
Union of India, Board.
• (3) On receipt of the list, along with the other documents received from the Central
AIR 1970 SC 150 Government the Commission shall forward its recommendations to that Government
• Regulation 6 stipulates that the officers recommended by the
Commission under Subrule (3) of Regulation 5 shall be appointed to the
service by the Central Government subject to the availability of vacancies
in the State cadre concerned.
 • Mr. Naqishbund:
• one of the candidates seeking to be selected to the All India Forest Service
• he did not sit in the selection board at the time his name was considered for selection
but he did sit in the board and participate in its deliberations when the names of Basu,
Baig and Kaul, his rivals, were considered for selection
• he did participate in the deliberations of the board while preparing the list of selected
candidates in order of preference, as required by Regulation 5

A.K. Kraipak v. ◦ Nature of the power conferred on the selection board under Rule 4
read with Regulation 5.
Union of India, ◦ QJ or admin?
◦ ‘For determining whether a power is an administrative power or a quasi-judicial power
AIR 1970 SC 150 one has to look to the nature of the power conferred, the person or persons on whom
it is conferred, the framework of the law conferring that power, the consequences
ensuing from the exercise of that power and the manner in which that power is
expected to be exercised’

◦ Test of bias
◦ “whether there is reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been
biased?”
◦ The board in making the selections must necessarily have given weight to the opinion
expressed by Naqishbund
 • Select List of the year 1971 prepared under the Indian
Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations.
1955
• The first contention for the petitioners is that the presence of
Shri B. C. Negi. respondent No. 9. as a member of the
Committee on October 22, 1971 vitiated its deliberations
because one of the officers selected, Shri H. S. Negi. respondent
D. K. Khanna v. No. 12, was related to him as his father-in-law
• “Bias has been classified into different categories. We are
Union of India concerned here with personal bias. Personal bias may arise from
AIR 1973 HP 30 personal hostility to one party or from personal friendship or
family relationship with the other. In the case of family
relationship, the challenge to the proceeding need only establish
so close a degree of relationship as to give rise to the reasonable
likelihood of the Judge espousing the cause as his own”
• What about the rest of the list?
 ◦The Bihar Mica Act, 1947, Section 25. "(1) The State Government may cancel
the licence or proprietor's certificate of any licensee or registered proprietor
who -(a) allows his licence or proprietor's certificate, as the case may be, to
be used on behalf of any other person as authority to buy or have in his
possession or sell mica extracted from a mica mine or from a mica dump,
or(b) being a person to whom a miner's licence has been granted extracts
mica from a mine the particulars of which are not endorsed on his licence,
Mineral or(c) is guilty of repeated failure to comply with any of the other provisions
of this Act or rules made thereunder, or(d) is convicted of an offence under
Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code committed in respect of mica
Development :Provided that a licence or a proprietor's certificate shall not be cancelled
solely by reason of conviction from which the licensee or the registered
Limited v. State proprietor has no right of appeal or revision;

of Bihar AIR ◦Provided further that a licence or a proprietor's certificate shall not be
cancelled unless the licensee or the proprietor has been furnished with the
grounds for such cancellation and has been afforded reasonable
1960 SC 468 opportunity to show cause why his licence shall not be cancelled
(2) A fresh licence or proprietor's certificate shall not, without the previous
sanction of the State Government, be granted to any licensee or registered
proprietor whose licence or proprietor's certificate has been cancelled
under this section."
 • Disciplinary proceedings
• Enmity
• Psychiatric evaluation
Personal bias as • No inspection provided
enmity: S. • Refused to participate in the enquiry
• the reviewing authority must make a determination
Parthasarathi v. on the basis of the whole evidence before it, whether
State of Andhra a reasonable man would in the circumstances infer
that there is real likelihood of bias. The court must
Pradesh AIR look at the impression which other people have. This
1973 SC 2701 follows from the principle that justice must not only
be done but seen to be done. If right minded persons
would think that there is real likelihood of bias on the
part of an inquiring officer, be must not conduct the
enquiry; nevertheless, there must be a real likelihood
of bias.
 • "we must make it clear that when a close relative of a member of a
Public Service Commission is appearing for interview, such member
must withdraw from participation in the interview of that
candidate and must not take part in any discussion in regard to the
merits of that candidate and even the marks or credits given to
that candidate should not be disclosed to him. "
Ashok Kumar • "in the present case it was common ground between the parties
that Shri Raghubar Gaur Dayal Gaur did not participate at all in
Yadav v. State of interviewing Trilok Nath Sharma and likewise Shri R.C. Marya did
not participate at all when Shakuntala Rani and Balbir Singh came
Haryana, AIR to be interviewed and in fact, both of them retired from the room
when the interviews of their respective relatives were held.
1987 SC 454 Moreover, neither of them took any part in any discussion in regard
to the merits of his relatives nor is there anything to show that the
marks or credits obtained by their respective relatives at the
interviews were disclosed to them. We are therefore of the view
that there was no infirmity attaching to the selections made by the
Haryana Public Service Commission on the ground that, though
their close relative were appearing for the interview, Shri Raghubar
Dayal Gaur and Shri R.C. Marya did not withdraw completely from
the entire selection process. This ground urged on behalf of the
petitioners must therefore be rejected. "
 ◦ Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930
◦ "3. No candidate shall be eligible to appear in the viva voce test unless he
obtains 45 per cent marks in the aggregate of all subjects including at least
33 per cent marks in each of the language papers in Hindi (in Devnagri
Script) and Hindi Essay provided that if at any examination a sufficient
number of candidates do not obtain 45 per cent marks in the aggregate
the Commission may at their discretion lower this percentage to not below
40 per cent for the language papers remaining unchanged."
◦ Issues:
Ashok Kumar ◦ that the Chairman and members of the Haryana Public Service
Commission were not men of high integrity, calibre and qualification and
Yadav v. State of they were appointed solely as a matter of political patronage and hence
the selections made by them were invalid.
Haryana, AIR ◦ that two of the selected candidates, namely, Mrs. Shakuntala Rani and
Balbir Singh were related to one of the members of the Haryana Public
1987 SC 454 Service Commission namely, Sh. R.C. Marya, while the third selected
candidate namely Trilok Nath Sharma was related to another member
namely, Sh. Raghubar Dayal Gaur and though these two members did
not participate in the interview of their respective relatives they did
participate in the interview of other candidates and the tactics adopted
by the Chairman and the members of the Commission was to give high
marks to the relatives and award low marks to the other candidates so as
to ensure the selection of their relatives
◦ that the viva voce test was not conducted fairly and honestly and the
selections made were vitiated on account of nepotism, favouritism and
casteism and also political motivation.
 ◦Mr. B.R. Nair, Member of Production in the Telecom
Commission, who was appointed as Member (Service)
on 29th May, 1992,participated. From the Advisor the
file went to Member (Service). The note of Mr. Nair is
dated 21st May, 1992. He agreed with the
recommendation of T.E.C. that four firms which had
Tata Cellular v. some deficiencies should be included in the short-list.
Union of India They were B.P.L.Systems and Projects, Mobile
Telecom, Mobile Communications and Indian Cellular.
AIR 1996 SC 30 Therefore, B.P.L. was approved by Mr. Nair.
Admittedly, Mr. Nair's son is employed in B.P.L.
Systems and Projects.
 ◦principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of
contractual powers by Government bodies in order to prevent
arbitrariness or favoritism. However, it must be clearly stated
that there are inherent limitations in exercise of that power of
judicial review. Government is the guardian of the finances of the
Bias in State. It is expected to protect the financial interest of the State.
government The right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always
available to the Government. But, the principles laid down
contracts: Tata in Article 14 of the Constitution have to be kept in view while
accepting or refusing a tender. There can be no question of
Cellular v. Union infringement of Article 14 if the Government tries to get the best
person or the best quotation. The right to choose cannot be
of India AIR considered to be an arbitrary power. Of course, if the said power
1996 SC 30 is exercised for any collateral purpose the exercise of that power
will be struck down.
 ◦In this case Mr Subhash Nair is only one of the officers in BPL,
which has over 5500 employees and 89 officers of his rank in 27
offices all over India. Mr Nair was not the decision-maker at all.
He was one of the recommending authorities. His involvement in
the approval and selection of the tender was indispensable. He
was originally the Member (Services) on 29-5-1992. Thereafter
he became Director General, Telecommunications by a
Tata Cellular v. notification issued by 28-7-1992 by the President of India. As
such, he was to exercise all powers of Telegraph Authority
Union of India under Section 3(6) of the Act. Therefore, the High Court was right
in applying the doctrine of necessity.
AIR 1996 SC 30
◦In this case, there is no such reasonable likelihood. Mr B.R. Nair
was not influenced directly, or, in any other manner, subtle or
otherwise. He did not, in fact, participate in any of the significant
or crucial stages in the selection process. Even otherwise, the
relationship is not such as to give reasonable apprehension of
bias.
 ◦Article 191(1) :
◦ A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being,
a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a
State-…..(e) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by
Parliament.
Election ◦ S. 9A, Representation of the People Act, 1951:
Commission v. Disqualification of Government contracts, etc. - A person
shall be disqualified if, and for so long as, there subsists a
Dr. contract entered into by him in the course of his trade or
business with the appropriate Government for the supply of
Subramanian goods to, or for the execution of any works undertaken by,
that Government.
Swamy AIR ◦ Explanation - For the purposes of this section, where a
1996 SC 1810 contract has been fully performed by the person by whom it
has been entered into with the appropriate Government,
the contract shall be deemed not to subsist by reason only
of the fact that the Government has not performed its part
of the contract either wholly or in part.
 • Article 192(1) provides that if any question arises as to
whether a member of a House of the Legislature has
become subject to any disqualification mentioned in
Article 191(1), the question shall be referred for the
Election decision of the Governor whose decision 'shall be final'.
Thus it is the Governor who has to take a decision and
Commission v. such decision is made final.
Dr. •192(2) - Before giving any decision on any such question,
Subramanian the Governor shall obtain the opinion of the Election
Commission and shall act according to such opinion.
Swamy AIR • can the Election Commission take a decision if one of its
1996 SC 1810 members is disqualified from participating in the decision-
making ?
 •post of Professor, Marine Science fell vacant. Advertisements
were issued from time to time but no candidate could be found
who fulfilled the essential qualifications for the post.
•Two persons – including GN Nayak- applied for
the advertisement. Both called for interviews.
G.N. Nayak v. •Sometime before the date of the interview a note was written
by the HOD – GN Nayak's boss - to the Vice Chancellor
Goa University, requesting for the holding of an urgent interview for the
appointment of Professor; Marine Science. The note placed on
AIR 2002 SC record an appointment letter received by the appellant for
790 appointment as Professor in Geology in the University of
Gulbarga. The note extolled the qualities of the appellant
•HOD participated in GN Nayak's interview, where Nayak was
selected for this post.
•Is there bias?
 •Bias may be generally defined as partiality or preference. It is true that
any person or authority required to act in a judicial or quasi-judicial
matter must act impartially. "If however, 'bias' and 'partiality' be
defined to mean the total absence of preconceptions in the mind of the
judge, then no one has ever had a fair trial and no one ever will. The
human mind, even at infancy, is no blank piece of paper. We are born
Bias or not?: with predispositions and the processes of education, formal and
informal, create attitudes which precede reasoning in particular
G.N. Nayak v. instances and which, therefore, by definition, are prejudices".

Goa University, •It is not every kind of bias which in law is taken to vitiate an act. It must
be a prejudice which is not founded on reason, and actuated by self
AIR 2002 SC interest whether pecuniary or personal. Because of this element of
personal interest, bias is also seen as an extension of the principle of
790 natural justice that no man should be a judge in his own cause. Being a
state of mind, a bias is sometimes impossible to determine. Therefore,
the Courts have evolved the principle that it is sufficient for a litigant to
successfully impugn an action by establishing a reasonable possibility of
bias or proving circumstances from which the operation of influences
affecting a fair assessment of the merits of the case can be inferred.