Administrative Law

J. Mohapatra & Co. v. State of Orissa

AIR 1984 SC 1572

Facts

The Orissa Government appointed committees to select textbooks for schools.
Some committee members were themselves authors of books submitted for selection.
Those members either did not participate when their own books were considered, or withdrew at that stage.
The selection was challenged on the ground of bias.

Whether textbook selection was invalid because members of the selection committee had their own books under consideration.

The rule against bias applies where there is a reasonable likelihood of bias.
Actual bias need not be proved.
A person having a direct interest in the result should not be part of the decision-making body.
Mere withdrawal when one’s own matter is discussed may not cure bias if the whole process is interlinked.

The Court looked at the selection process practically.
Textbook selection was not an isolated decision about one book at a time.
It was a comparative process where many books were considered together.
If a member’s own book was under consideration, he had a direct financial and professional interest in the final list.
The Court said that simply withdrawing when his own book was discussed was not enough.
Why? Because other members also had their books under consideration.
This created a possibility of mutual favouring or quid pro quo:
one member may support another member’s book;
later, that member may support his book;
even without express agreement, the structure itself creates suspicion.
Therefore, the bias was not removed merely by formal non-participation at one stage.
MP Jain explains this point clearly: even if an interested member withdraws when his book is considered, other members may remember that their own books will also come up, and this may influence the selection.
The important Administrative Law point is that fairness is judged not only by what actually happened, but also by how the process appears to a reasonable person.

The Supreme Court held that the textbook selection was vitiated by bias.
Members whose books were under consideration should not have been part of the committee at all.
Their limited withdrawal did not cure the defect.
The Court protected the books already selected for that academic year to avoid disruption, but gave directions for future selections.
Use this case for: where a decision-maker has direct personal/financial interest, apparent bias is enough; temporary withdrawal is not sufficient if the process remains collectively influenced.