Civil Appeal No 342 of 1956
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 141956 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No 2496 of 1956
R V section Mani for the appellant
C K Daphtary Solicitor General of India B Sen and R H Dhebar for the respondents
August 28
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by section K DAS J
This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Bombay under article 132 1 of the Constitution and the question involved in the appeal is the true scope and effect of article 3 of the Constitution particularly of the proviso thereto as it stands after the Constitution Fifth Amendment Act 1955 607 On December 22 1953 the Prime Minister of India made a statement in Parliament to the effect that a Commission would be appointed to examine  objectively and dispassionately   the question of the reorganisation of the States of the Indian Union  so that the welfare of the people of each constituent unit as well as the nation as a whole is promoted 
This was followed by the appointment of a Commission under a resolution of the Union Government in
the Ministry of Home Affairs dated December 29 1953
The Commission submitted its report in due course and on April 18 1956 a Bill was introduced in the House of the People Lok Sabha entitled The States Reorganisation Bill No 30 of 1956
Clauses 8 9 and 10 of the said Bill contained a proposal for the formation of three separate units namely 1 Union territory of Bombay  2 State of Maharashtra including Marathawada and Vidharbha and 3 State of Gujurat including Saurashtra and Cutch
The Bill was introduced in the House of the People on the recommendation of the President as required by the proviso to article 3 of the Constitution
It was then referred to a Joint Select Committee of the House of the People Lok Sabha and the Council of State Rajya Sabha
The Joint Select Committee made its report on July 16 1956
Some of the clauses of the Bill were amended in Parliament and on being passed by both Houses it received the President s assent on August 31 1956 and became known as the 37 of 1956 hereinafter called the Act
It is necessary to read here section 81 of the Act which instead of constituting three separate units as originally proposed in the Bill constituted a composite State of Bombay as stated therein
 S8 1 As from the appointed day there shall be formed a new Part A State to be known as the State of Bombay comprising the following territories namely  a the territories of the existing State of Bombay excluding 608 i Bijapur Dharwar and Kanara districts and
Belgaum district except Chandgad taluka and ii Abu Road taluka of Banaskantha district b Aurangabad Parbhani Bhir and Osmanabad districts Ahmadpur Nilanga and Udgir taluks of Bidar district Nanded district except Bichkonda and Jukkal circles of Deglur taluk and Modhol Bhiansa and Kuber circles of Modhol taluk and Islapur circle of Boath taluk Kinwat taluk and Rajura taluk of Adilabad district in the existing State of Hyderabad c Buldana Akola Amaravati Yeotmal Wardha Nagpur Bhandara and Chanda districts in the existing State of Madhya Pradesh d the territories of the existing State of Saurashtra and e the territories of the existing State of Kutch and thereupon the said territories shall cease to form part of the existing States of Bombay Hyderabad Madhya Pradesh Saurashtra and Kutch respectively
 The appointed day from which the new State of Bombay came into existence was defined in the Act as meaning November 1 1956
But before that date to wit on September 12 1956 the appellant herein filed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in which he alleged in substance that the formation of the composite State of Bombay as one unit instead of the three separate units as originally proposed in the Bill contravened article 3 of the Constitution inasmuch as the Legislature of the State of Bombay had no opportunity of expressing its views on the formation of such a composite State
The appellant asked for a declaration that section 8 and other consequential provisions of the Act were null and void and prayed for an appropriate writ directing the State Government of Bombay and the Union Government not to enforce and implement the same
This writ petition was heard by the Bombay High Court on September 14 1956 and by its judgment of even date the High 609 Court dismissed the petition holding that there was no violation or contravention of article 3 of the Constitution
The appellant then obtained the necessary certificate under article 1321 of the Constitution and filed his appeal in this Court on October 18 1956 on the strength of that certificate
Now it is both convenient and advisable to read at this stage article 3 of the Constitution as amended by the Constitution Fifth Amendment Act 1955 the alleged violation of which is the main ground of attack by learned counsel for the appellant
 article 3 Parliament may by law a form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State  b increase the area of any State c diminish the area of any State d alter the boundaries of any State and e alter the name of any State  Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area boundaries or name of any of the States the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or within such further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired
 It is clear that by its substantive part the Article gives a certain power to Parliament viz the power to make a law in respect of any of the five matters mentioned in cls
a to e thereof
This power includes the making of a law to increase the area of any State diminish the area of any State and alter the name of any State
The substantive part is followed by a proviso which lays down certain conditions for the exercise of the Power
It states that no Bill for the purpose the word  purpose  obviously has reference 610 to the power of making law in respect of the matters mentioned in the substantive part shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area boundaries or name of any of the States the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon
Thus the proviso lays down two conditions one is that no Bill shall be introduced except on the recommendation of the President and the second condition is that where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area boundaries or name of any of the States the Bill has to be referred by the President to the Legislature of the State for expressing its views thereon
The period within which the State Legislature must express its views has to be specified by the President but the President may extend the period so specified
If however the period specified or extended expires and no views of the State Legislature are received the second condition laid down in the proviso is fulfilled in spite of the fact that the views of the State Legislature have not been expressed
The intention seems to be to give an opportunity to the State Legislature to express its views within the time allowed if the State Legislature fails to avail itself of that opportunity such failure does not invalidate the introduction of the Bill
Nor is there anything in the proviso to indicate that Parliament must accept or act upon the views of the State Legislature
Indeed two State Legislatures may express totally divergent views
All that is contemplated is that Parliament should have before it the views of the State Legislatures as to the proposals contained in the Bill and then be free to deal with the Bill in any manner it thinks fit following the usual practice and procedure prescribed by and under the rules of business
Thus the essential content of the second condition is a reference by the President of the proposal contained in the bill to the State Legislature to express its views
thereon within the time allowed
It is worthy of note and this has been properly emphasised in the judgment of the High 611 Court that what has to be referred to the State Legislature by the President is the proposal contained in the Bill
The proviso does not say that if and when a proposal contained in the Bill is modified subsequently by an amendment properly moved and accepted in Parliament there must be a fresh reference to the State Legislature and a fresh bill must be introduced
It was pointed out in the course of arguments that if the second condition required a fresh reference and a fresh bill for every amendment it might result in an interminable process because any and every amendment of the original proposal contained in the Bill would then necessitate a fresh Bill and a fresh reference to the State Legislature
Other difficulties might also arise if such a construction were put on the proviso for example in a case where two or three States were involved different views might be expressed by the Legislatures of different States
If Parliament were to accept the views of one of the Legislatures and not of the other a fresh reference would still be necessary by reason of any amendment in the original proposal contained in the Bill
We are referring to these difficulties not because we think that a forced meaning should be given to the words of the proviso to avoid certain difficulties which may arise
We are of the view that the words of the proviso are clear enough and bear their ordinary plain meaning
According to the accepted connotation of the words used in the proviso the second condition means what it states and what has to be referred to the State Legislature is the proposal contained in the Bill it has no such drastic effect as to require a fresh reference every time an amendment of the proposal contained in the Bill is moved and accepted in accordance with the rules of procedure of Parliament
That in the present case the States Reorganisation Bill was introduced on the recommendation of the President has not been disputed nor has it been disputed that the proposal contained in the Bill was referred to the State Legislatures concerned and their views were received According to learned counsel for 612 the appellant however this was not enough compliance with the second condition of the proviso
He has put his argument in several ways
Firstly he has contended that the word  State  in article 3 should be given a larger connotation so as to mean and include not merely the geographical entity called the State but its people as well this according to learned counsel for the appellant is the  democratic process  incorporated in article 3 and according to this democratic process so learned counsel has argued the representatives of the people of the State of Bombay assembled in the State Legislature should have been given an opportunity of expressing their views not merely on the proposal originally contained in the Bill but on any substantial modification thereof
Secondly and following the same line of argument he has contended that the word  Bill  should be given an extended meaning so as to include any amendment at least any substantial amendment of the proposal contained in the Bill and thirdly he has contended that in the present case the formation of a new Bombay State as one unit was so different from the three units originally proposed in the Bill that it was not really an amendment of the original proposal but a new I proposal altogether for which a fresh Bill and a fresh reference were necessary
We proceed now to consider these contentions
It is necessary to state at the outset that our task is to determine on a proper construction the true scope and effect of article 3 of the Constitution with particular reference to the second condition laid down by the proviso thereto
We bring to our task such considerations as are germane to the interpretation of an organic instrument like the Constitution but it will be improper to import into the question of construction doctrines of democratic theory and practice obtaining in other countries unrelated to the tenor scheme and words of the provisions which we have to construe
In plain and unambiguous language the proviso to article 3 of the Constitution states that where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area boundaries or name of any of the States the Bill must be referred by the 613 President to the Legislature of the State for expressing its views
It does not appear to us that any special or recondite doctrine of  democratic process  is involved therein
Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to article IV section 3 of the American Constitution which says inter alia that  no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States or parts of States without the consent of the Legislatures of the State concerned as well as of the Congress
 That provision is quite different from the proviso we are considering the former requires the consent of the State Legislature whereas the essential requirement of our proviso is a reference by the President of the proposal contained in the Bill for the expression of its views by the State Legislature
For this reason we do not think that the decisions relied on by learned counsel for the appellant State of Louisiana vs State of Mississipi 1 and State of Washington vs State of Oregon1 are in point
The expression I State  occurs in article 3 and as has been observed in the State of Texas vs George W White 3 that expression may have different meanings it may mean a territorial region or people united in political relation living in that region or it may refer to the government under which the people live or it may even convey the combined idea of territory people and government
Article 1 of our Constitution says that India is a Union of States and the States and the territories thereof are specified in a Schedule
There is therefore no difficulty in understanding what is meant by the expression State  in article 3
It obviously refers to the States in the First Schedule and the I Legislature of the State  refers to the Legislature which each State has under the Constitution
That being the position we see no reasons for importing into the Construction of article 3 any doctrinaire consideration of the sanctity of the rights of States or even for giving an extended meaning to the expression I State  occurring therein
None of the constituent units of the 1  2  3 i869  78 614 Indian Union was sovereign and independent in the sense the American colonies or the Swiss Cantons were before they formed their federal unions
The Constituent Assembly of India deriving its power from the sovereign people was unfettered by any previous commitment in evolving a constitutional pattern suitable to the genius and requirements of the Indian people as a whole
Unlike some other federal legislatures Parliament representing the people of India as a whole has been vested with the exclusive power of admitting or establishing new States increasing or diminishing the area of an existing State or altering its boundaries the Legislature or Legislatures of the States concerned having only the right to an expression of views on the proposals
It is significant that for making such territorial adjustments it is not necessary even to invoke the provisions governing constitutional amendments
The second line of argument presented on behalf of the appellant is that the word I Bill  in the proviso must be interpreted to include an amendment of any of the clauses of the Bill at least any substantial amendment thereof and any proposal contained in such amendment must be referred to the State Legislature for expression of its views
We do not think that this interpretation is correct
Wherever the introduction of an amendment is subject to a condition precedent as in the case of financial bills the Consti tution has used the expression I A bill or amendments  eg in article 117
No such expression occurs in art 3
Secondly under article 118 Parliament has power to make rules of its own procedure and conduct of business including the moving of amendments etc
Rule 80 of the rules of procedure of the House of the People Lok Sabha lays down the conditions which govern the admissibility of amendments to clauses or schedules of a Bill and one of the conditions is that an amendment shall be within the scope of the Bill and relevant to the subject matter of the clause to which it relates
Article 122 1 of the Constitution says that the validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged 615 irregularity of procedure
In view of these provisions we cannot accept an interpretation of article 3 which may nullify the effect of article 122 an interpretation moreover which is based not on the words used therein but on certain abstract and somewhat illusory ideas of what learned counsel for the appellant has characterised as the democratic process
We recognise that the formation of a new composite State of Bombay as in section 8 of the Act was a substantial modification of the original proposal of three units contained in the Bill
That however does not mean that it was not a proper amendment of the original proposal or that the State Legislature had no opportunity of expressing its views on all aspects of the subject matter of the proposal
The High Court rightly pointed out that in the debates in the State Legislature several members spoke in favour of a composite State of Bombay
The point to note is that many different views were expressed in respect of the subject matter of the original proposal of three units and as a matter of fact it cannot be said that the State Legislature had no opportunity of expressing its views in favour of one composite unit instead of three units if it so desired
It cannot be said that the proposal of one unit instead of three was not relevant or pertinent to the subject matter of the original proposal
ID T H Vakil vs Bombay Presidency Radio Club Ltd 1 a decision on which learned counsel for the appellant has relied the question arose of the power of the chairman of a club to rule an amendment out of order
It was said therein that 1 an amendment must be germane to the subject matter of the original proposition and 2 it must not be a direct negative thereof
Judged by these two conditions it cannot be said that the proposal of one unit instead of three was not germane to the subject matter of the original proposal or was a direct negative thereof
We are unable therefore to accept the third contention of learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that the formation of a new Bombay State as envisaged in section 8 of the Act was so completely divorced from the proposal contained in 1 616 the Bill that it was in reality a new bill and therefore a fresh reference was necessary
It is advisable perhaps to add a few more words about article 1221 of the Constitution
Learned counsel for the appellant has posed before us the question as to what would be the effect of that Article
if in any Bill completely unrelated to any of the matters referred to in Cls
a to e of article 3 an amendment was to be proposed and accepted changing for example the name of a State
We do not think that we need answer such a hypothetical question except merely to say that if an amendment is of such a character that it is not really an amendment and is clearly violative of article the question then will be not the validity of proceedings in Parliament but the violation of a constitutional provision
That however is not the position in the present case
For these reasons we hold that there was no violation of article 3 and the Act or any of its provisions are not invalid on that ground
The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellants were carrying on motor transport business in Krishna District in Andhra Pradesh
The General Manager of the State Transport Undertaking published a scheme for nationalisation of motor transport and objections to the said scheme were invited
The appellants among others filed their objections
The Secretary in charge of the Transport Department gave personal hearing to the objectors and heard the representation made on behalf of the State Transport Undertaking
The Chief Minister who was in charge of transport passed the order approving the scheme
The appellants moved this Court under article 32 of the Constitution for quashing the said scheme and this Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao vs Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation previously decided held that the Secretary in charge of the Transport Department was incompetent to hear the objections on the around that no party could be a judge in his own cause and quashed the order approving the scheme
Thereafter notices were issued by the Government to the objectors
The Chief Minister himself heard the representatives of the objectors and the Road Transport Corporation and passed the order approving the scheme as originally published
The appellants moved the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution for writs of certiorari quashing the order passed by the Government confirming the scheme and subsequent orders Made by the Regional Transport Authority canceling their stage carriage permits
The High Court rejected the petitions and the appellants appealed
It was contended inter alia on their behalf that the same infirmity which attached to the Secretary in charge of the Transport Department on the previous occasion attached to the Chief Minister who was in charge of transport and rendered him incompetent to hear the objections
Held that the two well settled principles of the doctrine of bias that applied equally to judicial as well as quasi judicial tribunals were i that no man shall be a judge in his own cause and that 2 justice should not merely be done but must also appear to be done
Any kind of bias therefore in a judicial authority whether financial or other for or against any party or any position that might impute bias must disqualify him as a judge
581 But when a State Legislature or the Parliament in trans gression of the aforesaid principles by statute empowers an authority to be a judge in its own cause or decide a dispute in which it has an official bias such statute unlike one passed by the English Parliament has to stand scrutiny in the light of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution
The King vs Bath Compensation Authority and The King vs Leicester justices 1927 i KB 557 discussed
In the instant case however the relevant provisions of the Act do not sanction any transgression of the aforesaid principles of natural justice or authorise the Government to constitute itself a judge in its own cause
Nor could it be said that the State Government in the present case acted in violation of the aforesaid principles
Since the appellants never questioned the competence of the Chief Minister to decide the objections on the last occasion and obtained the judgment of this Court on that basis it was not open to them at this stage to reopen the closed controversy or take a contrary position
The position of the Chief Minister was quite distinct from that of the Secretary of the Department
While the Secretary of the Department was its head and so a part of it the Minister in charge was only primarily responsible for the disposal of the business pertaining to that Department
It was not therefore correct to say that the Chief Minister was a part of the Department constituted as a Statutory Undertaking under the Act