IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Every member of a Tribunal that is called upon to try issues in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings must be able to act judicially and it is of the essence of judicial decisions and judicial administration that judges should be able to act impartially, objectively and without any bias.
2. The test of likelihood of bias is whether there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the party before the Court or the Tribunal that the Court or the Tribunal will not act with fairness and without bias on account of certain objective circumstances.
3. A judgment which is the result of bias or want of impartiality is a nullity and the trial coram non-judice.

Headnote:Petroleum and Minerals, Pipelines Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962- Sections 2(a) ,10 - Writ petitions filed by appellants challenging appointment of Shri V.I. Gohil as Competent Authority for determination of compensation payable to appellants under the Act for acquisition of right of user in respect of their properties –Plea that Competent Authority was likely to act with bias considering the fact that his pay and allowances were being borne by respondent no.4-company -Dismissed by High Court-Appeals-Provisions of the Act showed that Competent Authority had got vast powers, which affected the rights of persons interested in the land over which pipeline was to be laid and on the reports of Competent Authority, Central Government and State Government were to take decisions affecting the rights of persons interested in the land- Competent Authority hence had to perform various quasi-judicial functions which were normally performed by public servants whose pay, allowances and other incidentals of service are met out of the public exchequer-If instead of public servants, a person is appointed whose pay, allowances and other incidentals are not paid out of public exchequer but directly paid by a private employer such as the respondent no.4, for whom the right of user is being acquired and by whom the compensation was payable, persons interested in the land would have reasonable grounds for assuming that such a Competent Authority, who was dependent on a private corporation for his salary, allowances, accommodation and transport allowances, would have a bias in favour of private corporation-Impugned Orders of High Court set aside-Appeals allowed (Paras 9 to 14)
       Facts of the Case :
        A. Writ petitions were filed by appellants herein in the instant case challenging appointment of Shri V.I. Gohil as Competent Authority for determination of compensation payable to appellants under the Act for acquisition of right of user in respect of their properties .
        B. Said writ petitions were filed on plea that Competent Authority was likely to act with bias considering the fact that his pay and allowances were being borne by respondent no.4-company.
        C. On writ petitions being dismissed by High Court ,present appeals have been filed.
       Findings of the Court :
        A. Competent Authority had to perform various quasi-judicial functions which were normally performed by public servants whose pay, allowances and other incidentals of service are met out of the public exchequer.
        B. If instead of public servants, a person is appointed whose pay, allowances and other incidentals are not paid out of public exchequer but directly paid by a private employer such as the respondent no.4, for whom the right of user is being acquired and by whom the compensation was payable, persons interested in the land would have reasonable grounds for assuming that such a Competent Authority, who was dependent on a private corporation for his salary, allowances, accommodation and transport allowances, would have a bias in favour of private corporation.
        C.Impugned Orders of High Court were set aside. Appeals were allowed

JUDGMENT

A. K. Patnaik, J.

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.17022 of 2008 and 17021 of 2008:

Leave granted.

2. These are appeals against the common order dated 06.12.2007 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application Nos.9015 of 2007 and 9016 of 2007.

3. The facts very briefly are that the Government of Gujarat by its letter dated 31.01.2006 requested the Government of India for approval of the nomination of persons to be appointed as Competent Authority for acquisition of right of user under the Petroleum and Minerals, Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (for short ‘the Act’) and one of the persons was Shri V.I. Gohil, Retired Deputy Collector. In the letter dated 31.01.2006 of the Government of Gujarat making the aforesaid request to the Government of India, it was stated that the expenses of pay and allowances and any other incidentals of the officials shall be borne by the respondent no.4-company from the date of their joining in the respondent no.4-company. The Government of India approved the appointment of Shri V.I. Gohil and issued a notification under Section 2(a) of the Act authorizing Shri V.I. Gohil to act as the Competent Authority under the Act for laying of the pipelines by respondent no.4 for transportation of natural gas in the State of Gujarat from the LNG terminals at Jamnagar and Hazira in Gujarat for distribution to various consumers located in the State of Gujarat and in the adjoining States of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh in respect of all the districts of Gujarat. The Competent Authority under the Act then issued notices under Section 6(1) of the Act to the appellants for the acquisition of the right of user of their properties and although the appellants filed objections to the proposed acquisition, the same was decided against the appellants. The appellants then filed claims for compensation under Section 10 of the Act before the Competent Authority and the claim for compensation was taken up for hearing at the office of the respondent no.4. The appellants raised preliminary objections to the sitting of the Competent Authority at the premises of the respondent no.4 in view of the fact that the claim for compensation was in respect of the acquisition of right of user for the project of the respondent no.4.

4. When such preliminary objections were of no avail, the appellants filed writ petitions (Special Civil Application Nos.9015 of 2007 and 9016 of 2007) before the High Court of Gujarat challenging the notification dated 07.03.2006 of the Government of India appointing Shri V.I. Gohil as the Competent Authority for determination of compensation payable to the appellants under the Act for acquisition of the right of user in respect of their properties on the ground that the Competent Authority is likely to act with bias considering the fact that his pay and allowances and all other incidentals are being borne by the respondent no.4-company and the Competent Authority is virtually an employee of the respondent no.4. By the impugned order dated 06.12.2007, the High Court held that simply because the Competent Authority was discharging the function from the premises of the respondent no.4 and was getting pay and allowances and perquisites directly from RGTIL and was provided rent free accommodation and use of the vehicle of the respondent no.4, the appointment of the Competent Authority cannot be held to be as one vitiated by the bias. The High Court relied on the decision of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Yashwant Gajanan Joshi and Others1 [1991 Supp (2) SCC 592] wherein a similar challenge to the appointment of an employee of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited as Competent Authority under the Act on the ground of bias was rejected by this Court. The High Court also held that the Competent Authority was not adjudicating any rights of the landowners against the respondent no.4 and his primary duty was to determin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 1005

Cases Referred (9)