Krishna Bus Service (P) Ltd. V. State Of Haryana, (1985) 3 Scc 711

BACKGROUND

The background and the material facts that led to the present matter are that on 16th March, 1973, the Haryana Government, through a notification (hereinafter also referred to as the “impugned notification”), amended the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 by adding clause (d) to sub-rule (2) of Rule 10.2.

By way of this amendment, the General Manager (hereinafter also referred to as the “GM”) of Haryana Roadways acquired powers that were held by a Deputy Superintendent of Police (hereinafter also referred to as the “DSP”).

On account of this, the Appellant filed a Writ Petition 1770 of 1978before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and called into question the validity of the impugned notification. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at the threshold.

Consequently, the Appellant preferred the present civil appeal before the Apex Court being dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court.

Apex Court decided to deliver a common judgment for the present civil appeal and several other writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Apex Court involving a common question and challenging thevalidity of the impugned notification.

WHAT WAS IN DISPUTE

In a nutshell the Apex Court delved into the following issue:

Whether the impugned notification dated 16th March, 1973 which conferred powers of a Deputy Superintendent of Policeon the General Manager, Haryana Roadways is valid or not?

RULES

  1. Constitution of India
  2. Article 19(1)(g)
  3. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
  4. Section 129
  5. Section 129-A
  • Section 133-A
  1. Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940
  2. Rule 10.2

ANALYSIS

The present matter centres around the issue of determining the validity of the the notification issued by the Haryana Government dated 16th March, 1973 which empowers the GM of Haryana Roadways to exercise the powers held by a DSP considering the fact that Haryana Roadways is a government department that is involved in the business of providing passenger transport and is a direct competitor of the private players in the market such as the Appellant and the Petitioners who also provide motor transportation.

The Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 (hereinafter also referred to as the “MV Act, 1939”) and the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules of 1940 (hereinafter also referred to as the “PMV Rules, 1940”) are laws that ought be followed by every operator of motor vehicle in the State of Haryana, including Haryana Roadways. The Appellant and the Petitioners contended that it cannot be reasonably presumed that the GM of the Haryana Roadways, who is personally responsible for conforming to the stipulations of the MV Act, 1939 and the PMV Rules, 1940 would be devoid of bias while discharging his functions.

By virtue of Section 129 and Section 129-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the GM of Haryana Roadways, subsequent to the impugned notification,obtained the powers of inspecting, searching, seizing and detaining any false document in possession of the driver or the owner of a motor vehicle or any motor vehicle if the use of such motor vehicle is in contravention of the provisions of the MV Act, 1939. In addition to that, the GM of the Haryana Roadways can lodge prosecution before a competent Magistrate subsequent to such seizure or detention. All these powers of inspection, search and seizure, detention etc. of motor vehicles seriously obstruct the fundamental right of private playersto freely carry out a business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, it is imperative that such rights be exercised reasonably and properly keeping in mind the welfare of the public.

Being a competitor of the private operators in the State of Haryana’s motor transport industry, the GM of Haryana Roadways in this case cannot be expected to carry out his obligations in a just and reasonable manner. It is safe to say that the GM of Haryana Roadways will be engulfed in a conflict of interest while carrying out his responsibilities on the one hand and ensuring the prosperity and profitability of his department on the other. This predicament raises the possibility of prejudice on the part of the GM of Haryana Roadways, who is potentially likely to be overly clement when examining the vehicles of his own department and harsh towards other motor vehicle operators in the State of Haryana.In such a scenario, there is likelihood of departmental or institutional bias and only natural for the General Manager to be unconsciously biased whilst carrying out his functions and duties.

[Image Sources : Shutter stock]

Krishna Case

Nemo judex in causa suameans that no one can be a judge in his own case. In situations where an adjudicator is confronted with a dilemma and is coerced to decide between carrying out his duties and serving his own interests,it is incumbent on the adjudicator to recuse himself from such a case so that principles of impartiality and fairness are not compromised.[1]

In Crawford Bayley[2] the Apex Court asserted that the Doctrine of Rule Against Bias is applicable in situations where the adjudicator has a personal connection or interest in the matter concerned. Rule Against Bias ensures fairness in proceedings[3]. Cases of departmental bias are actuated by a psychological interest that is more compelling than a mere pecuniary interest.[4]In the present matter, the General Manager, Haryana Roadways had a psychological and personal interest in the transportation business as he himself is a crucial competitor of the private players such as the Appellant and the Petitioner who are operating in the same industry. In GullapalliNageswara Rao v. A.P. State Road Transport Corpn.[5] the Apex Court explained that the authority empowered to decide the matter must not be prejudiced[6] towards either of the parties and it is fundamentally important for the person interested in either of the parties to not be a part of the administrative proceedings.

DECISION OF THE COURT AND CONCLUSION

The Apex Court concurred with the contention of the Appellant and the Petitioners that the powers of investigation, search, seizure, detention etc. vested upon the GM of the Haryana Roadways unreasonably restricted the fundamental right of private motor vehicle operators under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution. Such powers can only be construed as reasonable restrictions when they are devoid of any bias whatsoever and are exercised in a fair manner for the good of the public at large. The Apex Court opined that GM of the Haryana Roadways is unlikely to exercise his duties and functions reasonably and fairly because an impeded operation of motor vehicles owned by private players in State of Haryana would have a detrimental impact on the revenue generated by the Haryana Roadways. Therefore, the General Manager can be expected to be stringent in seizing and detaining the motor vehicles of private operators and extremely benevolent in carrying out inspection of the motor vehicles belonging to Haryana Roadways. In view of this, the Apex Court expressed that the intent of the Legislature behind Section 133-A of the MV Act, 1939 could not have been that a person responsible for operating motor transport and being under a duty to comply with the provisions of the MV Act, 1939 would also have the authority of carrying out inspection and investigation for the purpose of enforcing the said Act.

In view of this, The Apex Court held that the defense of the rule of necessity could not be claimed in the present case as there was no compelling need to appoint the General Manager of the Haryana Roadways as an officer having powers exercisable by a DSP. The GM of Haryana Roadways being a direct competitor of the private players involved in motor transportation had a personal interest in the business of motor transport operating in the State of Haryana. The Apex Court laid emphasis on the importance of impartial administration and asserted that public faith in the administration process is undermined when bias is prevalent.

Consequently, the Apex Court held the impugned notification dated 16th March, 1973 to be invalid and quashed the same.

AuthorSonakshi Pandey, Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

  • Agarwal, H. (2022). Preconceived Notion of Bias Is Not a Good Sign for the Growth of Administrative Law in India: Recusal of Judges. Issue 6 Indian JL & Legal Rsch.4, 1.
  • Crawford Bayley & Co. v. Union of India, (2006) 6 SCC 25
  • GullapalliNageswara Rao v. A.P. State Road Transport Corpn., 1959 Supp (1) SCR 319
  • Krishna Bus Service (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1985) 3 SCC 711
  • Rajasingham, S. (2016). Reforming the Rule against Bias in Administrative Law. CALJ3, 28.
  • RN, R. K. (2020). Nature and evolution of rule against bias under Indian administrative law jurisprudence. Juscholars Journal1(7), 26-33.
  • Schwartz, B. (1949). Departmental Bias in England-The Stevenage Case.  African LJ66, 197.

[1]Agarwal, H. (2022). Preconceived Notion of Bias Is Not a Good Sign for the Growth of Administrative Law in India: Recusal of Judges. Issue 6 Indian JL & Legal Rsch.4, 1.

[2] Crawford Bayley & Co. v. Union of India, (2006) 6 SCC 25

[3]Rajasingham, S. (2016). Reforming the Rule against Bias in Administrative Law. CALJ3, 28.

[4]Schwartz, B. (1949). Departmental Bias in England-The Stevenage Case. S. African LJ66, 197.

[5]GullapalliNageswara Rao v. A.P. State Road Transport Corpn., 1959 Supp (1) SCR 319

[6]RN, R. K. (2020). Nature and evolution of rule against bias under Indian administrative law jurisprudence. Juscholars Journal1(7), 26-33.

Leave a Reply

Categories

Archives

  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010