Holding

The State may validly constitute and modify book‑selection committees, author‑members are disqualified by the possibility of bias, the doctrine of necessity does not apply, and the petitioners have locus standi, leading to the allowance of the appeal and direction to amend the resolution with specific guidelines.

Summary

The case concerned the selection of textbooks and general‑reading books for school and college libraries in Orissa, where the State formed committees that included authors whose books were under consideration. Publishers challenged the selections, alleging bias, lack of standing, and violation of natural‑justice principles. The Supreme Court held that a person may have locus standi even if he has or has not submitted books, and that the State could lawfully alter committee composition and procedures for a time‑bound grant. It ruled that author‑members of the assessment sub‑committee are disqualified by the possibility of bias and that the doctrine of necessity does not justify their participation. The Court dismissed the High Court’s reliance on the doctrine of necessity, refused to set aside already purchased books, and laid down guidelines for future committee composition and conduct. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the State was directed to amend its resolution to incorporate the guidelines.

Issues considered

Whether a publisher who has submitted books for selection, or one who has not, has locus standi to challenge the book‑selection process.
Whether the State Government may change the composition of the assessment sub‑committee and the selection procedure in view of a time‑bound central grant.
Whether the inclusion of author‑members in the assessment sub‑committee creates a disqualifying bias violating natural justice.
Whether the doctrine of necessity can be invoked to validate the participation of biased members.
Whether relief can be granted to set aside books already purchased under the challenged selections.
Whether the Court should prescribe guidelines for future book‑selection committees.

Subjects

public interest litigationlocus standinatural justicebiasdoctrine of necessityadministrative laweducationbook selectioncommittee composition

Judgment

322

A J. MOHAPATRA & CO AND ANOTHER

v.

STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER

B August 10, 1984

[P. N. BHAGWATI AND D. P. MADON, JJ.)

Education laws and r,1/es-Books for general reading in Schools and
colleges libraries, and text books selection of by administrative lnstructions-
C Challenge to the Constitution of Sub-Comniittee and the method of selection
adopted-Whether can be 1nade by a person who has neither submitted any
book or by a perso'l who has submitted his books for selection, out of which a
few booki only has been selected-Doctrine of locus standl-Justification of
State's action In constituting a ConltnitJee-Doctrine of bias-Whether an
author~member can be a member of any such committee or sub·committee-
D Ru'e of Doctrine of necessiry, explained-Sufficiency of guidelines continued
Contalned ln-Resolution of the Government dated Noven1ber 24, 1983-
Guidelines prescribed by the Supreme Court.

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
E proper fducatio:i. Such selection must depend upon the ability and fitness
for the rtrpose of those who are ch:i.rged with that responsibility. 111 the
State of Orissa, there was no statutory rule or regulatio'n 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
F Assessment Sub-Comn1ittee, a Distribution Sub-Comn1ittce and a Purchase
CClmmittee to which Government officials as well as non-officials were
appointed as members. The procedure followed was. that each year the
Member-Sc!.::retary of the Purchase Committee would call upon publishers
and authors by advertisements given in local newspapers to submit books
for coniideration. The Assessment Sub-Committee could then consider
G
the books so submitted and thereafter recommend a list of books which,
according to it, ~:ere suitable for general reading by sc~ool and college
students. The Purchase Committee would consider the recommendations
nlade 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
H the list so submitted without givins any reason. Tbe d.ecision of the State
1, MOHAPA1RA v. O~JS!A

Government regarding the assessment, selection purchase and distribution A
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 B
restricted the list for the years l980, 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 bad been submitted for selection. c
Before further steps could be taken, in the unprecedented fionds and
cyclones of August/September 1982, number of schools 3.nd 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 D
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 supple- E
mentary lht 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
1ist of books were approved.

F
Thereupon, the appellants who were publishers filed a Writ Petition
uader Article 226 of the Constitution against the State of Orissa and the
Direclor 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 G
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, tho Court H
SUPREME COURT REPoRTS [1985j 1 s.c,i.

A HELD : 1. The Jaw with respect to locus slandl bas 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 commit ..
B tee 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. [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 adminis-
trative mea~ure it was open to the State Government to change both the
c constitution of the committee and sub-committees as also the procedure
for selecting books to be purchased. Since the procedure normally adopted
b, 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.
D
[331 G·H]
3: 1. Nen10 judex in causa .sua, that is, no man shall be a judge in
bis 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
E 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 othm, (1970] 1. S.C.R.
F 457, followed.
3:2. A person who has written a book which is submitted for
selection either by himself or by bis publishers, is interested in the matter
of selection and therefore .::n 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 roy-
G alty from the publishers or by direct sales ; (b) Though an author-member
•
may be only ono 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
H the other members against selecting books by other authors in preference
.f. MORAPATRA v. ORISSA 325

to his own ; (d) Books by some of the other members may also have been A
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
saiTie for you. In either case, when a book of an author-member comes
up for consideration, the other members would feel themselves embrasscd
in frankly discussing its merits ; (e) Such author-member may also be a
person holding a high official position whom the other n1cmbers may B
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 consi-
dering for approval was written by one of their members, whether they
were so influenced or not would, however, be a matter impossible to deter·
mine. 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]
c
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 disqualification _on the ground of bias or
interest in the matter which he has to decide, may be required to adjudi-
D
cate if there is no other person who is competent or authorized to adjudi-
cate or if a quorum cannot be formed without him or 1f 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 aad the machinery of justice or administration would
break dowa. [334 H; 335 A-BJ E

The Judges v. Attorney-Ge11eral for Saskatchewan, 53 The Times Law
Reports 464 (1937) quoted with approval.

4:2. lo the instant case, the High Court wrongly applied the doc..
trine of necessity to the author-member of the Assessment Sub-Committee. F
Though the members of this Suh-Committee were appointed by a Govern·
ment 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, ·G
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 ia the matter. [335 C·E]

S:J. The High Court, however,· was jusiified iii refusing to grant
any re1ief in respect of the books selected for the year 1980, 1981 and H
326 SUPRIM!l COURT REPORTS [I985j 1 s.c.R..

A 1982 inasmuch as the books selected for those years, had already been
purchased. Since a similar fait accompli stared at the Supreme Court not
onJy in respect of the book• selected aad purchased for those yearsJ but
also with respect to the books selected to be purchased from the Central
Government grant, in the instant fase, the Court could lay do•Nn only certain
guide-Jines to be followed in future in selecting not cnly books for libraries
B in educational institutions but also in prescribing text.books and in consti-
tuting committees for these purposes. The Supreme Court accordingly
laid down such guidelines. [335 F-H]

5:2. However .. the guide .. Jines laid do:.vn by a court can .only
·ensure the seli:ction of worthwhile books. This muSt necessarily depend
c upon the social consciousness and moral fibre of the members of the
•
committee. Further, no judgme~t of a court c1n elimiriate 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. [3 3 8 B·C]

D 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 be~ore 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
E or even his withdrawing from the deliberations of the committee whi1e '
his or her book or books are being considered is not sufficient because the
evil of quid pro quo c::innot be eliminated by such a resolution.-- Members
deliberating would bear in mind that the turn for selecting their books
\vcu!d also come and the concerned member who had not participated or
bad withdrawn -would not then be favourably inclined to select their books.
F [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 sub- •
mitting books for scelection merely because they bad at one time published a
book written by any one of the members of the committee or sub-committee
G
concerned with the selection of books. The number of publishers is large
but good publishers are few and such publishers will, therefore, be publi·
shing the majority of books. To Jay down such a guide·line would be to
eliminate a large number of books which may be worthy of selection.
[3 37 A·C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURisoicTION : Civil Appeal. Nci._, 10026 of
H 1983..
.... --

'
j, M:oitAPATRA v. ORISSA (Madon, J.) 327
From the Judgment and Order dated the 10th August, 1983 of A
the Orissa High Court in 0. J. C. No. 1239 of 1983.

Vinoo Bhagat for the appellants.

K. Parasaran, Attorney General and R. K. Mehta for the
respondents. B

Bharati Anand for the respondent.

.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MADON, f. The destiny of a nation rests with its youth. As c I·
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' :
D
"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 edu-
cational system. The general pattern of education in our country is,
however, the traditional one of studying from prescribed text-books, E
attending lectures based on such books and answering questions in
examinations set from them. The study of text-books is often supple-
mented 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 F
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.
G
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 H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] 1 s.c.it.
A Orissa dismissing, with no order as to costs, the petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the Appellants.

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 m school and college libraries. The
B
State Government, however, periodically issues administrative ins-
tructions in the form of Government Resolutions constituting commit-
tees and laying down the procedure for selecting books. Broadly
speaking, three committees are constituted, namely, an Assessment
Sub-Commitke, a Distribution Sub-Committee and a Pur~hase
c Committee. Government officials as well as non-officials are appoin-
ted as members on these committees and sub-committees. Each
year the State Government makes available a specific sum for pur-
chase 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
D and authors by advertisements given in local newspapers to submit
books for consideration. The Asse,;sment Sub-Committee then
considers the books so submitted and thereafter recommends a list
of books which, acccrding 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
E 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
F committee and sub-committee membe,rs are changed and new
members appointed in their place. The selection of books for the
years 1980, i981 and 1982 was made in this fashion. Admittedly,
some of the members of the Assessment Sub-Committee were them~
selves authors of books and some of the books written by them
were selected and purchased. The annual grent sanctioned by the
G State Government fer 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 Puachase 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
H Chairmanship of Director of Public Instruction (Schools), Orissa.
J. Moi!Ai>ATRA v. oiussA (Madon, J.)

This Committee selected a supplementary list of 105 books out of A
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 forge number of schools and
colleges suffered in this calamity and the libraries of many schools
.B
and colleges were washed away. The Central Government there-
upon, 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 Governme c
felt that it was not feasible to adopt for selection of books the
procedure usually followed as it took a considerable time and, there-
fore, 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 1930, 1981 and 1982 and the said supplementary list
of 105 books. Accordingly, a meeting was convened on April 13, D
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 E
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 Govern- F
ment's said decision with respect to purchasing books out of the
cyclone and flood relief grant made by the Central Government
inter a/ia 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 peti-
tion filed by the Orissa Publishers and Book Sellers Association. The
G
High Court by a common judgment delivered on August 10, 1983,
dismissrd 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 H
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 1 s.c.R.

A grounds, namely :

(1) For the year 1980-81, the First Appellants, a partnership
firm, had not submitted any book persuant to the advertisemen
isrned by the State Goeernment. For the year 1981-82, it bad
submitted twenty-four books out of which one was selected. For
B 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 gronnd
of bias on the part of the members of the Assessment Sub-Commi-
ttee. The Second Appellant had not submitted any book for
c selection pursuant to the advertisement in tbis 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.

D (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 b<loks from the grant made
by the Central Government was neither arbitrary nor against publi
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 Stat" 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
F
played by an individual member of the Assessment Sub-Committee
was insignificant and did not and could not infiuencG the decision
either of that Sub-Committee or of the State Government.

( ') The presence of Govern.ment officials as members of the
Purchase Committee and the two Sub-Committees was required by
G
the Government Resolution constituting the 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 /'or the doctrine of necessity
applied in their case.

H (5) No relief could be granted in respect of the books selected
J. MOHAPATRA v. ORiSSA (Madon. J.) 331

for the years 1980, 1981 and 1982 inasmuch as the books selected A
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 pe,rson has submitted books for selection,
B
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 c
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, D
merely because a person does not submit any book for selection, it
cannot be said that he is not a persqn aggrieved. Today, the law
with respect to locus standi has considerably advanced both in this
country and in England and in th'e case of public interest litigation·
it is not necessary that a petitioner should himself have a personal
interest in the matter. Tt is unnecessary to refer to the decisions E
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
ontention was not raised on behalf of the Respondents.

So far as the second ground given by the High Court for
F
arriving at its decision is concerned, we are in agreemrnt 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 G
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 solocting bo:>ks to b' pucch1sed from H
332 SUPREME COUl\T REPORTS !1985] l s.c.R.

A 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. Accord-
ing to the Appellants, some publishers were present at that meeting
and took part in the deliberations. According to the counter affi-
davit filed by the President of tho Orissa Publishers and Book-Sellers
B Association, a representative of that Association was called in at
the end of that meeting to ascertain whether the said Association
was prepared to sh0ulder 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 preJent at the delibera-
tions thereof. A copy of the minutes of the said meeting which
c has been annexed to the Potition for Special Leave to Appeal filed
by the Appellants bears out this fact. According to the said minutes, c
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
with'n the amount sanctioned for each category of schools and that
the total number of books for each title would be almost equal and
D
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 th~ 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 avaihble •
E
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
F 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.
Nerno judex in cauia 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.
G
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 bearing 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
JI proceedings. The position in law has been s~ccinctly s,tate4 ill
J. MOHAPATRA v. ORISSA (Madon, J.) 333

Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume I, Para 68, as A
folws

"Disqualification' for fi.nanclal interest-There is a
presumption that any direct financial interest, however
small, in the matter in dispute di.qualifies a person from
adjudicating. Membership of a company, association or B
other organisation which is financially interested may ope-
rate 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. Un'on of India and
Others,( 1 ) a list. of State Forest Officers prepared by the Selection c
Bo:.rd 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
D
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 recommen-
dations were to be made. The Court held that the rule that no
man should be a judge in his own cause was a principle of natural
justice and applied equally to the exercise of qaasijudicial as well E
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, is interested in the matter of selection.
Authors get their books published by publishers or may themselves F
oublish them. In either case, they stand to benefit financially.
In the first ca<e, 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 sale> 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 G
accrued to those members of the Assessment Sub-Committee whose
books were solected. 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

(!l [1970] l $.C.R. 457 1 ll
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] I S.C.R.

A 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 aggre-
gate value of Rs. 72,500 in the year 1982. It was contended in the
counter affidavit ftled 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 royally depends on the agree-
B ment 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 aud 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
c 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 Governmont 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
D be guided by the list approved by the Assessment Sub-Committee.
Further, to say that such author-member is C)nly 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 pre'erence to his own.
It can also be that books by some of the other members may also
E 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 embarassed in frankly discusslr.g its
merits. Such author-member may also be a person holding a high
official position whom the other members may not want to displease.
F
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 mamhers. 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
G
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
H necessity. An adjudtcator, who is subject to disqualification on the
1. MOHAPATRA v. ORISSA (Madon, J.) 335

gro'1nd of bias or interest in the matter which he has to decide, A
may be required to adjudicate if there is no· other person who is
competent or authorize<! tn adjudicate or if a quorum cannot be
formed without him or if no other competent tribunal can be consti-
tuted. In such cases the principle of natural justice·would have
to give way to necessity ·for otherwise there would be no means of
dec'ding the matter rnd the machinery of justice or administration .B
would break down. Thus, in The JuJges 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 tho 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 Saskatchwan on the ground that they were
c
bound to act ex necessitate. 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 D
Govemme~t Resolution, and some of them wcro 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 E
amend its Resolution by appointing a substitute or mbstitutes, as ·
the case may be. There was equally nothing to prevent such non-
official author-members from resigning from th> committee on the
ground of their interest in ·the matter .
. So far as the fifth and last ground on which the High Court F
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 fail 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 G
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 /\ppeal is
to lay down guide-lines which should be followed in the future in
selecting not only books for libraries. in educational institutions but
(I) 53 The Times Law Reports 4~4. (1n1) ·
"
336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985) l S.C.R.

A also in prescribing text-books and in constituting committees fop
these purposes.

It was, however, submitted on behalf of the Respondents that

.."
B
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 Resolu-
tion dated Novemher 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 fa;r play and natural justice by eliminating
tho possibility of any author-member of the committee influencing
c author-members in selecting his book. Clause (8) of the said Resolu-
tion reads as follows :

"No member of the Purchase/ Assessment Committee
shall remain present in discussion while considering a book
D in which he/she is interested as 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. 'C

We are unable to accept either of the above two submissions.
Several books would come up for consideration before the commit-
tee, one or more of them by one of the members and the other or
others by somo of thJ other member;. 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
F books are being considered is not sufficient became the evil of quid
pro quo cannot be eliminated by this. Member; 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 with-
..
drawn would not then be favourably inclined to select their books.

It was suggested on behalf of the Appellants that in laying
G •
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 favou-
H rably inclined to select or approve the booK of that publisher in order
J, MOHAPATRA v. ORISSA (Madon. J.)

to mainta111 good relations with him. We find this suggestion to be A
unre~Jistic. Many a person falls a victim to that disease which
Juvenal 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 sub-
mitting 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 c
publishers will, therefore, be publishing the m"jority 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 Jay down the following D
guide-lines to be adopted by the State Government, govemment:il
authorities and all committees constituted for the selection to text-
books 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 :

{I) The committee should not con;ist merely of Government
officials or have a preponderance of Government officials on it, for
Government officials, with few exceptions, have by and large only
admimstrative experience, Jn addition to Government officials,
therefore, the committee should also consist of 111en eminent in the
particular fields of knowledge for which Ihe books are to .be F
sdected. Non-official members should not be appointed as a
matter of p~litic1l p1tron1g' or out of pJIJtioal coosidprations 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 appro- G
• val or selection; should continue to remain a member of the commit-
teo. If he is a non-official member, he should submit his
resignation from the committee on this ground. If he is a Govern-
ment 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 autho:ity shoulj sub3titute in place H
338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 1 S.C.R.

A 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.
B
The guide-lines we have laid down above arc 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 neces-
sa•ily depend upon the _social consciousness and moral fibre of the
c 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.

D For the reasons mentioned above, we allow this Appeal and
direct the State of Orissa to amend suitably the Government Reso-
lution 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
E selection already made.

In the part'cular facts and circumstances of this case there
will be no order as to the costs of this Appeal.

S.R. Appeal allowed.

•