http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

PETITIONER: J. MOHAPATRA & CO AND ANOTHER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/08/1984

BENCH: MADON, D.P. BENCH: MADON, D.P. BHAGWATI, P.N.

CITATION:  1984 AIR 1572            1985 SCR  (1) 322  1984 SCC  (4) 103        1984 SCALE  (2)191  CITATOR INFO :  F          1985 SC1416  (101)  RF         1986 SC 555  (6)  F          1990 SC1480  (75)

ACT:      Education laws  and rules-Books  for general reading in Schools and  colleges libraries, and text books selection of by administrative instructions-Challenge to the Constitution of Sub-Committee and the method of selection adopted-Whether can be  made by  a person who has neither submitted any book or by  a person  who has  submitted his books for selection, out of  which a few books only has been selected-Doctrine of locus standi-Justification of State’s action in constituting a Committee-Doctrine of bias-Whether an author-member can be a member  of any  such committee  or sub  committee-Rule  of Doctrine of  necessity, explained-Sufficiency  of guidelines continued Contained  in-Resolution of  the Government  dated November  24,  1983-Guidelines  prescribed  by  the  Supreme Court.

HEADNOTE:      Selection of  text-books and  books for  reading to  be kept in  school and  college libraries  is a matter of vital importance  to  the  imparting  of  proper  education.  Such selection must  depend upon  the ability and fitness for the purpose of  those who  are charged with that responsibility. In the  State of  Orissa, there  was no  statutory  rule  or regulation prescribing  the procedure for selection of books for general  reading  to  be  kept  in  school  and  college libraries,  except   the   State   Government’s   periodical administrative  instructions  in  the  form  of  resolutions constituting committees namely, an Assessment Sub-Committee, a Distribution  Sub-Committee and  a Purchase  Committee  to which Government  officials as  well as  non-officials  were appointed as  members. The  procedure followed was that each year the  Member-Secretary of  the Purchase  Committee would call upon  publishers and authors by advertisements given in local newspapers  to submit  books  for  consideration.  The Assessment Sub-Committee  could than  consider the  books so submitted and  thereafter recommend  a list  of books which, according to it, were suitable for general reading by school and college  students. The Purchase Committee would consider

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

the recommendations  made by  the  Assessment  Sub-Committee prepares a  final list  and submit  it for  approval to  the State Government which could reject any book out of the list so submitted  without giving any reason. The decision of the State 323 Government regarding  the assessment, selection purchase and distribution of books was made final.      The selection of the books for the years 1980, 1981 and 1982 was  made in  this fashion.  Admittedly,  some  of  the members of  the  Assessment  Sub-Committee  were  themselves authors of  books and some of the books written by them were selected and  purchased. The  Purchase Committee  restricted the list  for the years 1980, 1981 and 1982 to 466 books out of 1,718 books submitted for selection, but as further funds became available the Government decided to select more books and  accordingly   a   committee   constituted   under   the Chairmanship of  Director of  Public Instruction  (Schools), Orissa, selected  a supplementary  list of  105 books out of the said 1,718 books which had been submitted for selection.      Before  further   steps  could   be   taken,   in   the unprecedented fiords  and cyclones of August/September 1982, number of  schools and colleges suffered in the calamity and the libraries of many schools and colleges were washed away. The Central  Government thereupon,  as part  of  its  relief programme for  the State,  gave grants  to the  State during February and March, 1983 aggregating to Rs. 45 lakhs for the purchase of  books for  the  libraries  of  non-governmental schools and  colleges and  to be  utilised before June 1983. Due to  Paucity of  time and  delay in the normal process of selection of  books, the State Government took a decision or April 5,  1983 to  utilise the  grant made  by  the  Central Government by purchasing books out of the books selected for the years  1980, 1981  and 1982  and the  said supplementary list of  105 books.  In the  meeting convened  on April  13, 1983, to  consider the  selection of  books to be purchased, all the 466 books selected for the years 1980, 1981 and 1982 together with  the 105  supplementary  list  of  books  were approved.      Thereupon, the  appellants who  were publishers filed a Writ Petition  under Article 226 of the Constitution against the State  of Orissa and the Director of Public Instruction, Orissa to  quash the  list of  books selected  for the years 1980, 1981 and 1982 and the State Government’s said decision with respect  to purchasing  books out  of the  cyclone  and flood relief  grant made  by the  Central Government,  inter alia on  the ground  of bias  on the  part of  some  of  the members of  the Assessment  Sub-Committee whose  books  were submitted for  selection. This Writ Petition was heard along with a  similar Writ Petition filed by the Orissa Publishers and Book  Sellers Association.  The High  Court by  a common judgment delivered  on August  10, 1983 dismissed both these Writ Petitions.  Hence the  appeals by  Special Leave of the Court.      Allowing the appeal, the Court 324 ^      HELD :  1. The  law with  respect to  locus standi  has considerably advanced  both in  this country  and in England and in  the case  of public  interest litigation  it is  not necessary that  a petitioner  should himself have a personal interest in  the matter.  Merely  by  submitting  books  for selection, of  which some might have been selected, a person cannot be  said to  have waived  the objection  which he may have to  the constitution of the committee which selects the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

books. Similarly,  merely because  a person  does not submit any book  for selection, it cannot, be said that he is not a person aggrieved. [331 E; D]      2. In  the absence  of any statutory rule or regulation with respect  to selection  of books and the selection being made each  year as  an administrative measure it was open to the State  Government to change both the constitution of the committee and  sub-committees  as  also  the  procedure  for selecting  books   to  be  purchased.  Since  the  procedure normally adopted  by the  State Government  would have taken more time  than what  the time  bound grant  of the  Central Government would  have permitted,  the State  Government was justified in  convening the  meeting on  April 13,  1983 and selecting  the  books  to  be  purchased  from  the  Central Government grant. [331 G-H]      3:1. Nemo  judex in causa sua, that is, no man shall be a judge  in his own cause, is a principle firmly established in  law.   Justice  should  not  only  be  done  but  should manifestly be  seen to be done. It is on this principle that the proceedings  in courts  of law  are open  to the  public except in  those cases  where for  special  reason  the  law requires or  authorizes a  hearing in  camera.  Justice  can never be seen to be done if a man acts as a judge in his own cause or is himself interested in its outcome. The principle applies not  only to judicial proceedings but also to quasi- judicial and administrative proceedings. [332 G-H]      A. K.  Kraipak and others v. Union of India and others, [1970] 1. S.C.R. 457, followed.      3:2. A person who has written a book which is submitted for selection  either by  himself or  by his  publishers, is interested in  the matter  of  selection  and  therefore  an author-member should  not be  a member of any such committee or sub-committee  for several  considerations namely  :  (a) Authors stand  to benefit  financially in  several  ways  by getting either  royalty from  the publishers  or  by  direct sales; (b)  Though an  author-member may  be only one of the members  of  the  Assessment  Sub-Committees  and  that  the ultimate decision  of selection  may  rest  with  the  State Government which  may reject any book out of the list of the approved books,  normally the  State would  be guided by the list of books approved by the Assessment Committee ; (c) The author-member can certainly influence the minds of the other members  against   selecting  books   by  other  authors  in preference 325 to his own ; (d) Books by some of the other members may also have been  submitted for  selection and there can be between them a  quid pro quo or, in other words you see that my book is selected  and in  return I  will do  the same for you. In either case,  when a  book of  an author-member comes up for consideration,  the  other  members  would  feel  themselves embrassed in  frankly  discussing  its  merits  ;  (e)  Such author-member may  also be  a person holding a high official position whom  the other members may not want to displease ; and (f)  Though it  may be that the other members may not be influenced  by  the  fact  that  the  book  which  they  are considering  for  approval  was  written  by  one  of  their members, whether  they were  so  influenced  or  not  would, however, be  a matter  impossible to  determine. It  is not, therefore, the  actual bias  in favour  of the author-member that is material but the possibility of such bias. [333 F-H; 334A-G]      4 :  1. The  doctrine  of  necessity  is,  however,  an exception to  the doctrine  of bias,  that no man shall be a judge in  his own  cause. An  adjudicator, who is subject to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

disqualification on  the ground  of bias  or interest in the matter which he has to decide, may be required to adjudicate if there  is no  other person who is competent or authorized to adjudicate or if a quorum cannot be formed without him or if no  other competent  tribunal can be constituted. In such cases, the  principal of  natural justice would have to give way to  necessity for  otherwise there  would be no means of deciding  the   matter  and  the  machinery  of  justice  or administration would break down. [334 H; 335 A-B]      The Judges v. Attorney-General for Saskatchewan, 53 The Times Law Reports 464 (1937) quoted with approval.      4:2. In  the  instant  case,  the  High  Court  wrongly applied the  doctrine of  necessity to  the author-member of the Assessment  Sub-Committee. Though  the members  of  this Sub-Committee were  appointed by a Government resolution and some of  them were  appointed  by  virtue  of  the  official position  they   were  holding,   such  as,  the  Secretary, Education Department  of the  Government of  Orissa, and the Director, Higher  Education, etc.,  there  was,  nothing  to prevent those  whose books were submitted for selection from pointing out  this fact  to the  State Government so that it could amend  its resolution  by appointing  a substitute  or substitutes, as  the case  may be. There was equally nothing to prevent  such non-official  author-members from resigning from the  committee on  the ground  of their interest in the matter. [335 C-E]      5:1. The High Court, however, was justified in refusing to grant any relief in respect of the books selected for the year 1980, 1981 and 326 1982 inasmuch  as the  books selected  for those  years  had already been purchased. Since a similar fait accompli stared at the  Supreme Court  not only  in  respect  of  the  books selected and  purchased  for  those  years,  but  also  with respect to  the books  selected to  be  purchased  from  the Central Government  grant, in  the instant  fase, the  Court could lay  down only  certain guide-lines  to be followed in future  in   selecting  not  only  books  for  libraries  in educational institutions  but also in prescribing text-books and in  constituting  committees  for  these  purposes.  The Supreme Court accordingly laid down such guidelines. [335 F- H]      5:2. However,  the guide-lines laid down by a court can only ensure  the selection  of worthwhile  books. This  must necessarily depend  upon the  social consciousness and moral fibre of  the members of the committee. Further, no judgment of a  court can  eliminate  the  evil  of  behind-the  scene influence. Here,  one  must  perforce  trust  the  sense  of responsibility of  the  members  of  the  committee  in  the discharge  of   the  important  duty  with  which  they  are entrusted. [338 B-C]      6:1.  Clause  8  of  the  Government  resolution  dated November 24,  1983, issued  after the grant of Special Leave Petition to Appeal does not satisfy the principle of natural justice and fair play. Since several books would come up for consideration before  the committee,  one or more of them by one of  the member  and the  other or  others by some of the other members,  mere non-participation  in the discussion by the member  concerned  or  even  his  withdrawing  from  the deliberations of  the committee  while his  or her  book  or books are  being considered  is not  sufficient because  the evil of  quid  pro  quo  cannot  be  eliminated  by  such  a resolution. Members deliberating would bear in mind that the turn for  selecting their  books would  also  come  and  the concerned member  who had  not participated or had withdrawn

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

would not then be favourably inclined to select their books.                                                 [336 B; E-G]      6:2. Many a person falls a victim to the disease called cacoethes scribendi.  It  would,  therefore,  be  unfair  to prohibit publishers  from  submitting  books  for  selection merely because they had at one time published a book written by any  one of the members of the committee or sub-committee concerned  with  the  selection  of  books.  The  number  of publishers is  large but  good publishers  are few  and such publishers will,  therefore, be  publishing the  majority of books. To lay down such a guide-line would be to eliminate a large number of books which may be worthy of selection.                                                    [337 A-C]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10026 of 1983. 327      From the Judgment and Order dated the 10th August, 1983 of the Orissa High Court in O. J. C. No. 1239 of 1983.      Vinoo Bhagat for the appellants.      K. Parasaran,  Attorney General and R. K. Mehta for the respondents.      Bharati Anand for the respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      MADON, J. The destiny of a nation rests with its youth. As we  shape its  mind and  mould its  character, so  do  we fashion our  country’s progress,  prestige  and  prosperity. Wordsworth truly said, "The Child is father of the Man", and Alexander Pope  was equally  right in saying in the first of his ’Moral  Essays’-’Epistle I  to Sir  Richard Temple, Lord Cobham’:      "Tis Education  forms the common mind, Just as the Twig      is bent, the Tree’s inclin’d."      It is,  therefore, essential  for a  country to  have a proper educational  system. The general pattern of education in our  country is, however, the traditional one of studying from prescribed text-books, attending lectures based on such books and answering questions in examinations set from them. The study  of text-books  is often  supplemented by  reading books which  are kept in school and college libraries. These books may  be on  various subjects-literature, history, art, science, geography,  and  even  works  of  fiction.  General reading is  as essential for a student as it is for any man, for it  is reading  which broadens  the mind  and widens the horizon. It  was for  this reason  that Bacon  said  in  his essay, ’Of  Studies’, "Reading  maketh a  full man", General reading  is,   therefore,  as  important  as  studying  from prescribed text-books if the students of today are to become worthy citizens of tomorrow.      The selection  of these books-both text-books and books for general  reading  to  be  kept  in  school  and  college libraries-is thus  a  matter  of  vital  importance  to  the imparting  of   proper  education.   Such   selection   must necessarily depend  upon the  ability and  fitness  for  the purpose of  those who  are charged with that responsibility. This question  has come  up for  our consideration  in  this Appeal by  Special Leave  from the judgment and order of the High Court of 328 Orissa dismissing,  with no  order as to costs, the petition under  Article   226  of   the  Constitution  filed  by  the Appellants.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

    There does  not exist  any statutory rule or regulation in the  State of Orissa prescribing the method for selection of books  for general  reading to  be  kept  in  school  and college   libraries.    The   State   Government,   however, periodically issues  administrative instructions in the form of Government Resolutions constituting committees and laying down the  procedure for  selecting books.  Broadly speaking, three committees are constituted, namely, an Assessment Sub- Committee,  a  Distribution  Sub-Committee  and  a  Purchase Committee. Government officials as well as non-officials are appointed as members on these committees and sub-committees. Each year  the State  Government makes  available a specific sum for  purchase of  books for  libraries to be distributed among  individual   schools  and   colleges.  The  procedure followed is  that each  year  the  Member-Secretary  of  the Purchase Committee  calls upon  publishers  and  authors  by advertisements given in local newspapers to submit books for consideration. The  Assessment Sub-Committee  then considers the books  so submitted  and thereafter recommends a list of books which,  according to  it,  are  suitable  for  general reading  by   school  and  college  students.  The  Purchase Committee  considers   the  recommendations   made  by   the Assessment Sub-Committee  and prepares  a final  list. It is open to  the State  Government to reject any book out of the list so submitted without giving any reason and the decision of the State Government regarding the assessment, selection, purchase and  distribution of  books is made final. Though a separate Government  Resolution is  issued each year, by and large the same pattern and procedure are maintained and only a few  committee and  sub-committee members  are changed and new members appointed in their place. The selection of books for the  years 1980, 1981 and 1982 was made in this fashion. Admittedly, some  of the  members  of  the  Assessment  Sub- Committee were  themselves authors  of books and some of the books written  by them  were  selected  and  purchased.  The annual grant  sanctioned by  the State  Government for  this purpose for  the years 1980, 1981 and 1982 was Rs. 5,00,000. So far  as the  year 1982  was concerned,  this annual grant fell short  of  the  requirement  by  almost  50  per  cent. Accordingly the  Purchase Committee  restricted the  list of 466 books out of 1,718 books submitted for selection, but as further funds  became available  the Government  decided  to select more  books and  accordingly constituted  a Committee under the  Chairmanship of  Director of  Public  Instruction (Schools), Orissa. 329 This Committee  selected a  supplementary list  of 105 books out of  the said  1,718 books  which had  been submitted for selection.      There were  unprecedented floods  and cyclones  in  the months of  August and  September 1982  and a large number of schools and  colleges suffered  in  this  calamity  and  the libraries of many schools and colleges were washed away. The Central  Government   thereupon,  as   part  of  its  relief programme for  the State,  gave grants  to the  State during February and March 1983 aggregating to Rs. 45,00,000 for the purchase of  books for  the  libraries  of  non-governmental schools and  colleges. This  was a  time-bound grant  to  be utilized by June 1983. For this reason, the State Government felt that  it was  not feasible  to adopt  for selection  of books  the   procedure  usually   followed  as   it  took  a considerable time  and, therefore,  took a decision on April 5, 1983,  to utilize the grant made by Central Government in purchasing books  out of  the books  selected for  the years 1980, 1981  and 1982  and the said supplementary list of 105

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

books. Accordingly,  a meeting  was convened  on  April  13, 1983, to  consider the  selection of  books to be purchased. There is  some controversy  with respect to who convened the said meeting,  who were  present at  that meeting  and  what transpired in that meeting, but we find it unnecessary to go into this  controversy. Suffice  it to say that books out of those selected  for the  years 1980,  1981 and  1982 and the said supplementary list were selected at this meeting.      Thereupon the  Appellants who  are publishers  filed  a petition under  Article 226  of the Constitution against the State of  orissa and  the Director  of  Public  Instruction, Orissa, to  quash the  lists of books selected for the years 1980, 1981 and 1982 and the State Government’s said decision with respect  to purchasing  books out  of the  cyclone  and flood relief grant made by the Central Government inter alia on the  ground of bias on the part of some of the members of the Assessment  Sub-Committee whose books were submitted for selection. This writ petition was heard along with a similar writ petition  filed  by  the  Orissa  Publishers  and  Book Sellers Association.  The High  Court by  a common  judgment delivered on  August 10,  1983, dismissed  both  these  writ petitions and  made no  order as to the costs thereof. It is against this  judgment and  order of  the Orissa  High Court that the  Appellants have  approached this  Court by  way of Appeal by Special Leave.      The High  Court rested  its decision  on the  following five 330 grounds, namely:      (1) For  the year  1980-81,  the  First  Appellants,  a partnership firm, had not submitted any book pursuant to the advertisement issued  by the  State Government. For the year 1981-82, it had submitted twenty-four books out of which one was selected. For the year 1982-83, it had submitted twenty- nine books  out of which six were selected. Having submitted books  for   selection  and  after  being  either  partially successful in  getting some  books selected or having failed in  getting  books  submitted  by  it  selected,  the  First Appellant could  not impugn  the selection  of books  on the ground of  bias on the part of the members of the Assessment Sub-Committee. The  Second Appellant  had not  submitted any book for  selection pursuant  to the  advertisement in  this behalf issued  by the  State Government for any of the years in question  and, therefore, was not a "person aggrieved" by any of the selections made for those years      (2) Considering  the exigency  of  the  situation,  the procedure followed  by the  State Government in setting up a committee for the selection to be made for purchase of books from the  grant made  by the  Central Government was neither arbitrary  nor  against  public  interest  inasmuch  as  the procedure usually  followed was  laid down only by executive directions and  was not  a statutory  procedure  and  could, therefore, be changed by the State Government.      (3) The final decision approving the selection of books was that  of the  State Government  for it  had the right to reject any  book recommended by the Assessment Sub-Committee and, therefore, the fact that some members of the Assessment Sub-Committee had  also submitted  their books  for approval did not  matter for  the role played by an individual member of the  Assessment Sub-Committee  was insignificant  and did not and could not influence the decision either of that Sub- Committee or of the State Government.      (4) The  presence of Government officials as members of the  Purchase  Committee  and  the  two  Sub-Committees  was required  by  the  Government  Resolution  constituting  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

Committees and  Sub-Committees and  the fact  that  some  of these Governmental  officials had  also submitted  books for selection could  not invalidate  the selection  made on  the ground of  bias for  the doctrine  of necessity  applied  in their case.      (5) No  relief could be granted in respect of the books selected 331 for the  years 1980,  1981 and  1982 inasmuch  as the  books selected for those years had already been purchased.      We are  unable to follow the reasoning behind the first ground upon  which the  High Court  rested its  decision. It appears to  us paradoxical  that when a person has submitted books for selection, it is to be said that he has waived the objection which  he had  to the  constitution  of  the  Sub- Committee and that when a person had not submitted any books for selection  it is  to be  said that  he is  not a ’person aggrieved’. To  say so would be a contradiction in terms. If the reasoning  of the  High Court were correct, the sequitur would  be  that  nobody  would  be  able  to  challenge  any selection  of   books,  for  a  person  who  challenges  the selection must  either be  one who  has submitted  a book or books for  selection or  one who  has not submitted any book for selection.  In our opinion, the High Court was not right in  the  view  it  took.  Merely  by  submitting  books  for selection of  which some  might have been selected, a person cannot be  said to  have waived  the objection  which he may have to  the constitution of the committee which selects the books. Similarly,  merely because  a person  does not submit any book  for selection,  it cannot be said that he is not a person aggrieved.  Today, the  law  with  respect  to  locus standi has considerably advanced both in this country and in England and  in the case of public interest litigation it is not necessary  that  a  petitioner  should  himself  have  a personal interest  in the matter. It is unnecessary to refer to the  decisions of  this Court  on the  point or to dilate further upon  it. We  may,  however,  mention  that  at  the hearing of  this Appeal  before us  this contention  was not raised on behalf of the Respondents.      So far as the second ground given by the High Court for arriving at  its decision  is concerned, we are in agreement with the  view which  it took. There were no statutory rules or regulations  with respect  to selection  of books and the selection was  done each  year as an administrative measure. It was,  therefore, open  to the  State Government to change both the constitution of the committee and sub-committees as also the  procedure for selecting books when books had to be purchased from  the grant  given by  the Central Government. The grant given by the Central Government had to be expended within a  particular period.  The procedure normally adopted by the State Government would have taken more time than what the time-bound  grant of  the Central  Government would have permitted. The State Government was, therefore, justified in setting up  a committee  for selecting books to be purchased from 332 the Central  Government grant in the manner in which it did. There is,  however, some  controversy as  regards  the  fact whether any  publishers were  present at the meeting of that committee. According to the Appellants, some publishers were present at  that meeting and took part in the deliberations. According to the counter affidavit filed by the President of the  Orissa   Publishers  and  Book-Sellers  Association,  a representative of  that Association was called in at the end of that  meeting to  ascertain whether  the said Association

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

was prepared  to shoulder  the responsibility  for arranging the timely  supply of  books and the said representative did not take part in the proceedings of the said meeting nor was he present  at the  deliberations thereof.  A  copy  of  the minutes of  the said  meeting which  has been annexed to the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal filed by the Appellants bears out  this fact.  According to the said minutes, it was decided at  the  said  meeting  that  the  publishers  would prepare a  list of books to be supplied to different schools in different  lots within  the amount  sanctioned  for  each category of  schools and  that the total number of books for each title  would be  almost equal  and that  the publishers would submit  the list  of such  books for  approval at  the level of the directorate. It is further recorded in the said minutes  that   the  said   Association   would   take   the responsibility of  supplying the  books in  packets  in  the office of  the concerned authorities by the specified dates. The urgency  of the  situation demanded that the books which were selected should be available for supply and, therefore, there could not be anything wrong in asking a representative of the said Association to remain present.      It is,  however, unnecessary  to go  further into  this controversy for  the real  question in this Appeal is of far greater importance. That is the question of bias on the part of some of the members of the Assessment Sub-Committee. This question has  been answered against the Appellants and forms the subject-matter  of the third and fourth grounds on which the High Court rested its decision. Nemo judex in causa sua, that is,  no man  shall be  a judge  in his  own cause, is a principle firmly established in law. Justice should not only be done  but should  manifestly be seen to be done. It is on this principle  that the  proceedings in  courts of  law are open to  the public  except in those cases where for special reason the  law requires  or authorizes a hearing in camera. Justice can  never be  seen to  be done  if a  man acts as a judge in  his own  cause or  is himself  interested  in  its outcome.  This   principle  applies  not  only  to  judicial proceedings but  also to  quasi-judicial and  administrative proceedings. The  position in law has been succinctly stated in 333 Halsbury’s Laws  of England,  Fourth Edition, Volume I, Para 68, as follows :           "Disqualification for  financial interest-There is      a  presumption  that  any  direct  financial  interest,      however small,  in the matter in dispute disqualifies a      person from  adjudicating.  Membership  of  a  company,      association or  other organization which is financially      interested may operate as a bar to adjudicating, as may      a bare  liability to  costs where  the decision  itself      will involve no pecuniary loss."      In the  case of  A.K. Kraipak  and others  v. Union  of India  and  Others,(1)  a  list  of  State  Forest  Officers prepared by  the Selection Board for appointment to posts in the senior  and junior  scales in  the Indian Forest Service was  set  aside  by  this  Court  on  the  ground  that  the officiating Chief  Conservator of  forests, whose  name  was placed at the top of the list, was a member of the Selection Board even  though he  was not  present at the time his name was considered  for selection  and even though the Selection Board was  a recommendatory body and the list prepared by it was to  be considered first by the Home Ministry and then by the Union  Public  Service  Commission  by  whom  the  final recommendations were  to be  made. The  Court held  that the rule that  no man  should be  a judge in his own cause was a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

principle of  natural justice  and applied  equally  to  the exercise of qashi-judicial as well as administrative powers.      In hardly  requires any  argument to show that a person who has  written a  book which  is submitted  for selection, either by  himself or  by his  publisher,  interested in the matter of  selection. Authors  get their  books published by publishers or  may themselves  publish them. In either case, they stand  to benefit  financially. In  the first  case, by getting royalty  from publishers  and in the second case, by making profits  on the  sale of books if the amount realized exceeds the  cost of publication, or if the sales are not to that  extent,   by  reducing   the  cost   incurred  in  the publication  of   the  book.   The  Appellants   have  filed statements showing  the financial  benefit which  accrued to those members  of the  Assessment Sub-Committee  whose books were selected.  To give  one instance from these statements, in the  case of a member of the Assessment Sub-Committee who was a  Government official  and whose  books were  selected, books of the 334 aggregate value  of Rs.  4,000 were  purchased in  the  year 1980, of  the aggregate value of Rs. 6,500 in the year 1981, and of  the aggregate  value of Rs. 72,500 in the year 1982. It was contended in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents that the amount of royalty received by these member-authors was  not much.  This fact  is immaterial. The amount of  royalty depends  on  the  agreement  between  the author and  the publisher as also upon the sale price of the book. The  fact, however,  remains that  by the  books being selected  and  purchased  for  distribution  to  school  and college libraries  the sales  of those books had gone up and correspondingly the  royalty received  by the author-members also went up and such author-members thus received financial benefit. It  is no  answer to  say that  an author-member is only one  of the members of the Assessment Sub-Committee and that the  ultimate decision  rests with the State Government which may reject any book out of the list of approved books. A similar  argument was  rejected by this Court in Kraipak’s case. The  State Government  would normally be guided by the list approved  by the  Assessment Sub-Committee. Further, to say that  such author-member  is only  one of the members of the Assessment  Sub-Committee is  to overlook  the fact that the author-member  can subtly  influence the  minds  of  the other members  against selecting  books by  other authors in preference to  his own. It can also be that books by some of the other members may also have been submitted for selection and there  can be  between them  a quid pro quo or, in other words, you see that my book is selected and in return I will do the  same for  you. In  either case,  when a  book of  an author-member comes  up for consideration, the other members would feel  themselves embarrassed in frankly discussing its merits. Such  author-member may  also be  a person holding a high official  position whom  the other members may not want to displease.  It can  be that  the other members may not be influenced  by  the  fact  that  the  book  which  they  are considering  for  approval  was  written  by  one  of  their members. Whether they were so influenced or not is, however, a matter  impossible to determine. It is not, therefore, the actual bias  in favour of the author-member that is material but the  possibility of  such bias. All these considerations require that  an author-member should not be a member of any such committee or sub-committee.      There is,  however, an exception to the above rule that no men  shall be  a judge  in his  own  cause,  namely,  the doctrine of  necessity. An  adjudicator, who  is subject  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

disqualification on the 335 ground of  bias or  interest in  the matter  which he has to decide, may  be required  to adjudicate if there is no other person who  is competent or authorized to adjudicate or if a quorum cannot be formed without him or if no other competent tribunal can  be constituted. In such cases the principle of natural justice  would have  to give  way to  necessity  for otherwise there would be no means of deciding the matter and the machinery of justice or administration would break down. Thus, in The Judges v. Attorney-General for Saskatchewan,(1) the Judges  of the  Court of  Appeal were  held competent to decide the  question whether  Judges of the Court of Appeal, of the  Court of  King’s Bench and of the District Courts of the Province  of Saskatchewan were subject to taxation under the Income-tax Act, 1932, of Saskatchewan on the ground that they were  bound  to  act  exnecessitate.  The  doctrine  of necessity applies  not only  to judicial matters but also to quasi-judicial and  administrative matters.  The High Court, however, wrongly applied this doctrine to the author-members of the  Assessment Sub-Committee. It is true, the members of this Sub-Committee were appointed by a Government Resolution and some  of them  were appointed  by virtue of the official position  they   were  holding,   such  as,  the  Secretary, Education Department  of the  Government of  Orissa, and the Director, Higher Education, etc. There was, however, nothing to prevent  those whose  books were  submitted for selection from pointing  out this fact to the State Government so that it could  amend its Resolution by appointing a substitute or substitutes, as  the case  may be. There was equally nothing to prevent  such non-official  author-members from resigning from the  committee on  the ground  of their interest in the matter.      So far  as the  fifth and last ground on which the High Court rested its decision is concerned, it must be held that the High  Court was justified in refusing to grant relief on this ground  in respect  of the books selected for the years 1980, 1981  and 1982.  We are also faced with a similar fait accompli as  the High  Court was, not only in respect of the books selected  and purchased  for those years but also with respect to  the books  selected and to be purchased from the Central Government  grant because  these books  have also by now been  purchased and distributed among the various school and college  libraries. All  that we  can, therefore,  do in this Appeal  is to  lay down  guide-lines  which  should  be followed in  the future  in selecting  not  only  books  for libraries in educational institutions but 336 also  in   prescribing  text-books   and   in   constituting committees for these purposes.      It was, however, submitted on behalf of the Respondents that it  was not  necessary for  this Court  to lay down any guide-lines inasmuch  as after  the Special  Leave to Appeal was granted  in this case, the State Government had issued a fresh Government Resolution dated November 24, 1983, whereby it constituted  a  new  Purchase  Committee  and  Assessment Committee  consisting   of  Government  officials  and  non- official members,  clause (8)  of which Resolution satisfied the  principles   of  fair   play  and  natural  justice  by eliminating the  possibility of  any  author-member  of  the committee influencing  author-members in selecting his book. Clause (8) of the said Resolution reads as follows :           "No member  of the  Purchase/Assessment  Committee      shall remain  present in discussion while considering a      book    in    which    he/she    is    interested    as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

    author/editor/publisher."      In the  alternative, it was submitted that if the Court desires to lay down guide-lines, it should do so by adopting clause (8)  of the said Government Resolution dated November 24, 1983.      We are  unable  to  accept  either  of  the  above  two submissions. Several  books would  come up for consideration before the  committee, one  or more  of them  by one  of the members and  the other  or  others  by  some  of  the  other members. Mere  non-participation in  the discussion  by  the member  concerned   or  even   his  withdrawing   from   the deliberations of  the committee  while his  or her  book  or books are  being considered  is not  sufficient because  the evil of  quid pro  quo cannot be eliminated by this. Members deliberating would  bear in mind that the turn for selecting their books would also come and the concerned member who had not  participated   or  had  withdrawn  would  not  then  be favourably inclined to select their books.      It was  suggested on  behalf of  the Appellants that in laying down  the guide-lines  we should  provide that  if  a publisher has published a book written by one of the members of  the   committee  or  sub-committee  concerned  with  the selection of  books, such  publisher should not be permitted to submit any book for selection even though no book by that author-member had been submitted for selection. It was urged that in  such a  case the  author-member would be favourably inclined to  select or approve the book of that publisher in order 337 to maintain good relations with him. We find this suggestion to be  unrealistic. Many  a person  falls a  victim to  that disease  which   Jnvenal  called   cacoethes   scribendi(the writer’s itch),  for as Byron said in his ’English Bards and Scottish Reviewers’ :           "’Tis pleasant,  sure, to see one’s name in print;      A book’s a book, although there’s nothing in’t."      It would,  therefore, be  unfair to prohibit publishers from submitting  books for selection merely because they had at one  time published  a book written by one of the members of  the   committee  or  sub-committee  concerned  with  the selection of  books The  number of  publishers is  large but good publishers are few and such publishers will, therefore, be publishing  the majority  of books.  To lay  down such  a guide-line would  be to  eliminate a  large number  of books which may be worthy of selection.      In the  light of  the above  discussion we lay down the following guide-lines to be adopted by the State Government, governmental authorities  and all committees constituted for the selection  to textbooks  as also  books for libraries of educational institutions  whether such committee be called a committee or  sub-committee or  be described  by some  other nomenclature :      (1)  The   committee  should   not  consist  merely  of Government officials  or have  a preponderance of Government officials  on   it,  for   Government  officials,  with  few exceptions,  have   by   and   large   only   administrative experience. In  addition to Government officials, therefore, the committee  should also  consist of  men eminent  in  the particular fields of knowledge for which the books are to be selected. Non-official  members should not be appointed as a matter of  political considerations  or on  party lines  but should be appointed only on merit.      (2) No  member of  the committee,  a  book  written  or edited by  whom  is  submitted  either  by  himself  or  his publisher for  approval or  selection;  should  continue  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13  

remain a  member of  the committee.  If he is a non-official member, he  should submit his resignation from the committee on this  ground. If  he is  a Government official, he should intimate to  the Government  or the authority appointing him on that  committee the fact that a book written or edited by him has  been submitted  for approval  or selection  and the Government or  the concerned  authority should substitute in place 338 of such  member another  person, whether  official  or  non- official,  none  of  whose  books  has  been  submitted  for approval or selection.      (3) No  publisher of books or his representative should be appointed  a member  of the  committee or  be allowed  to remain present at or participate in the deliberations of the committee.      The  guide-lines  we  have  laid  down  above  are  not intended to be exhaustive but contain the bare essentials of what is  required. We are conscious that no guide-lines laid down  by   a  court  can  ensure  the  selection  of  really worthwhile books.  This must  necessarily  depend  upon  the social consciousness  and moral  fibre of the members of the committee. Similarly,  no judgment  of a court can eliminate the evil  of  behind-the-scene  influence.  Here,  one  must perforce trust the sense of responsibility of the members of the committee  in the  discharge of  the important duty with which they are entrusted.      For the  reasons mentioned  above, we allow this Appeal and direct  the  State  of  Orissa  to  amend  suitably  the Government Resolution dated November 24, 1983, or to issue a fresh notification  in supersession  of  that  notification, incorporating the  guide-lines laid  down by  us  above,  as expeditiously as  possible and  in any event before the next selection of  books is made, without affecting any selection already made.      In the  particular facts and circumstances of this case there will be no order as to the costs of this Appeal. S.R. Appeal allowed. 339