Question

“If one person hears and another decides, personal hearing becomes an empty formality”
Which of the following statement is false with respect to the above observation?

• A. Observed in the context of delegation of quasi judicial and judicial functions
• B. Observed by Subba Rao J. in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v A.P SRTC
• C. Observed by Hidayatullah J. in Bombay Municipal Corporation v Thondu
• D. Both (a) and (b)

Hint:

The principle of "He who hears must decide" is a direct offshoot of the right to a fair hearing (*audi alteram partem*).
If a statute permits one officer to hear and another to decide, it must do so through clear, explicit language, otherwise the courts will read this natural justice rule into the process.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Question:
The question asks us to identify the false statement regarding the famous judicial observation: "If one person hears and another decides, personal hearing becomes an empty formality."

Step 2: Key Legal Principles and Approach:
This observation represents a fundamental rule of natural justice: "He who hears must decide."
If the authority that conducts the personal hearing is different from the authority that ultimately passes the decision, the hearing is reduced to a meaningless ritual because the deciding mind does not have the benefit of hearing the oral arguments or observing the demeanor of the parties.

Step 3: Detailed Explanation:

• Origin of the Quote: This classic observation was made by Justice K. Subba Rao of the Supreme Court of India in the landmark case of Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (AIR 1959 SC 308, also known as the first Gullapalli case).

• Hence, statement (B) is true.

• Context of the Decision: In this case, the Secretary of the Transport Department conducted the personal hearing of objections against the nationalization scheme, but the final decision was made by the Chief Minister.

• The Supreme Court held that this procedure violated the principles of natural justice because the person who heard the objections did not decide, and the person who decided did not hear.

• Context of Delegation: This rule operates strictly in the context of the delegation of quasi-judicial and judicial functions, which cannot be split in a manner that separates the hearing from the decision.

• Hence, statement (A) is also true.

• The False Statement: Statement (C) claims that this was observed by Justice Hidayatullah in Bombay Municipal Corporation v. Thondu Govind Cholke.

• Since the observation was actually made by Justice Subba Rao in the Gullapalli case, statement (C) is legally false.

• Therefore, Option (C) is the correct answer.

Step 4: Final Answer:
The famous observation was made by Justice Subba Rao in the *Gullapalli* case, making the assertion in Option (C) false, and thus it is the correct answer.