This Writ Petition has been filed to declare the action of Respondents 1 to 5 in appointing the 6th respondent Sri A. Venkata Rao, Deputy Collector to act as the Competent Authority, as defined in Section 2(a) of the Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User In Land) Act, 1962 (for short, the Act) in regard to HPCL, Vijayawada- Dharmapuri Pipeline Project being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts, in brief, are that: the 1st respondent - Union of India in its Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Department, which is responsible for exploration, production, refining, distribution, marketing, export, import and conservation of petroleum, natural gas, petroleum products and liquefied natural gas in India, initiated Vijayawada-Dharmapuri Pipeline Project and accorded sanction to the 4th respondent HPCL to execute the said project work, by notifying certain lands in Chandarlapadu, Nandigama and Kanchikacherla Mandals, Krishna District. Petitioners herein own and possess various extents of lands in Kadavatikollu Village, Chandarlapdu Mandal. The case of the petitioners is that by virtue of G.O.Rt.No. 1907, General Administration (SC-B) Department, dated 29.8.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent State of Andhra Pradesh, the 6th respondent was appointed as the Competent Authority, under Section 2(a) of the Act, to perform the functions of the Competent Authority prescribed under the said Act.

3. Placing reliance on the letter dated 01.11.2017 addressed by the 6th respondent to the Secretary to CCLA, Government of Andhra Pradesh, requesting to issue a certificate enabling him to draw salary, emoluments and other incidentals, the petitioners contend that the 6th respondent, though a government employee, is being paid by Respondents 3 and 4 Corporation and hence, there is every possibility to presume that he will have bias in favour of the Corporation.

4. Pursuant to the notice dated 14.12.2017 served on the petitioners herein and other farmers of Kadavatikollu Village, under Rule 3(3) & Section 3 of the Act, by which the 6th respondent intimated them that their lands would be affected due to laying of petroleum pipelines, apprehending that meagre compensation amount would be offered, the petitioners along with others submitted their objections on 02.01.2018, questioning the very appointment of the 6th respondent as the Competent Authority on the ground of bias. The other objection of the petitioners is that if the pipeline is laid underground, as proposed, their lands would be divided into two parts and they would not be fit for cultivation, thereby their livelihood would get affected severely.

5. According to the petitioners, the Competent Authority is given wide-ranging powers under Section 5 for considering the objections, under Section 6 for making the report to the Central Government and under Section 10 for determining the compensation for damage/loss or injury and to determine the market value. By virtue of these powers, crucial rights of the persons interested in the land are bound to be affected. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Trilok Sudhirbhai Pandya v. Union of India, (2011) 10 SCC 203 and Laljibhai Kadvabhai Savaliya v. State of Gujarat, (2016) 9 SCC 791 to support their case that a person appointed as the Competent Authority could be a person other than a public servant and that he should be a person who is holding or has held a rank not below that of a Subordinate Judge or is a trained legal mind.

6. Apprehending that the 6th respondent competent authority may not be able to act fairly and unbiased, the petitioners have approached this Court.

7. Entertaining the Writ Petition, on 18.01.2018, this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings being conducted by the 6th respondent as the competent authority, for a period of three weeks.

8. A counter-affidavit sworn to by Sri R. Ramesh, General Manager, Pipeline Projects of Hindustan Pe