TRILOK SUDHIRBHAI PANDYAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                        [2011] 12 S.C.R. 1106


A                  TRILOK SUDHIRBHAI PANDYA
                                   v.
                      UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 8629 of 2011)

                         OCTOBER 13, 2011.
B
          [R. V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

         Administrative Law:

c         Bias ..,. Appointment of Competent Authority for
    determination of compensation to land owners for laying
    pipelines by a company for transportation of natural gas -
    Challenged by land owners on the ground that there was
    likelihood of bias as the salary, allowances and perquisite of
0   Competent Authority were being borne by the company, rent
    free accommodation and vehicle were provided to it by
    company and it was holding sitting in the premises of the
    company - HELD: The test of likelihood of bias is wfiether
    there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the party
E   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 - There is no dispute in the instant
    case that the salary, allowances, accommodation and
    transport were being borne by the respondent-company
    directly - Thus, the Competent Authority was virtually an
F   employee of the company and there were grounds for the
    appellants to entertain a reasonable apprehension in their
    mind that the Competent Authority will not act fairly and is
    likely to act with bias - Thus, the entire proceedings for
    determination of compensation before the Competent
G   Authority concerned in the instant case would be a nullity -
    The impugned orders of the High Court as well as the
    proceedings for determination of compensation in the case
    of the appellants only are set aside - However, it is made
    clear that the judgment will not affect any of the orders passed
H                                  1106
 TRI LOK SUDHIRBHAI PANDYA v. UNION OF INDIA & 1107
                     ORS .

. by the competent authority concerned with regard' to              A
  acquisition of the right of user as the appellants challenged
  the appointment only after the proceedings for determination
  of compensation were started - The Union of India is directed
  to appoint another unbiased person for determination of
  compensation payable to the appellants - Petroleum and            s
  Minerals, Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act,
  1962 - ss. 2(a), 6, 10, 11 and 12.

     The Government of Gujarat by its letter dated
31.01.2006 requested the Government of India for
approval of the nomination of one 'VIG', Retired Deputy
                                                                    c .
Collector to be appointed as Competent Authority for
acquisition of right of user under the Petroleum and
Minersal Pipelines (Acquisition of Rightof User in Land)
Act, 1962(the Act). In the letter, it was stated that the
expenses of pay and allowances and any other D
incidentals of the official shall be borne by the company
for which the pipelines were to be laid for transportation
of natural gas. The Government of India approved the
nomination and issued a notification u/s. 2(a) of the Act
authorizing the said 'VIG' to act as the Competent E
Authority under the Act. The Competent Authority then
issued notices u/s 6(1) of the Act to the landowners for
the acquisition of the right of user of their properties and
although the latter filed objections to the proposed
acquisition, the same were decided against them. They F
then filed claims for compensation u/s. 10 of the Act
before the Competent Authority and the claim for
compensation was taken up for hearing at the office of
respondent no.4-Company. The landowners raised
preliminary objection to the sitting of the Competent G
Authority at the premises of respondent no. 4 in view of
the fact that the claim for compensation wa.s in respect
of the acquisition of right of user for the project of
respondent no.4, but to no avail. The landowners then
challenged before the High Court the notification dated H
    1108    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A 07.03.2006 of the Government of India appointing the
  Competent Authority on the ground that the Competent
  Authority was likely to act with bias. The High Court
  dismissed the writ petitions. Aggrieved, the landowners
  filed the appeals.
B
        Allowing the appeals, the Court

       HELD: 1.1 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
C tribunal will not act with fairness and without bias on
  account of certain objective circumstances. [para 12]

       Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Others 1988 (1)
    SCR 512 = (1987) 4 sec 611 - relied on.
D        1.2 The 'Competent Authority' as defined u/s 2(a) of
    the Petroleum and Minerals, Pipelines (Acquisition of
    Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, is to hear objections of
    persons interested in the land to the laying of the
    pipelines under the land and the order passed by it u/s 5
E   is final. On the basis of the report of the Competent
    Authority, the Central Government, may declare u/s 6 of
    the Act that the right of user in the land for laying the
    pipelines should be acquired and on the publication of
    such declaration, the right of user in the land specified
F   in the declaration shall vest absolutely in the Central
    Government free from all encumbrances. The Competent
    Authority is to determine the compensation payable to a
    person interested in the land under which the pipeline is
    proposed to be, or is being, or has been laid for any
G   damage, loss or injury sustained by him (s.10], and the
    amount of the compensation is to be deposited with the
    Competent Authority within such time and in such
    manner as may be prescribed and the Competent
    Authority is to pay on behalf of the Central Government,
H   the State Government or the Corporation, as the case
TRI LOK SUDHIRBHAI PANDYA v. UNION OF INDIA & 1109
                    ORS.
may be, the compensation to the persons entitled thereto     A
and where several persons claim to be interested in the
amount of the compensation, the Competent Authority is
to determine the persons who in its opinion are entitled
to receive the compensation and the amount payable to
each of them [s.11]. The Competent Authority has all the     B
powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the purposes mentioned in
s.12 of the Act. [para 8] [1122-C-H; 1123-A-C]

     1.3 The various provisions of the Act show that the     C
Competent Authority has got vast powers, which affect
the rights of persons interested in the land over which
the pipeline is to be laid and on the reports of the
Competent Authority, the Central Government and the
State Government are to take decisions affecting the
rights of persons interested in the land. Under the          D
provisions of the Act, therefore, the Competent Authority
does not merely determine the compensation at the first
instance in accordance with the statutory rules, but has
to perform various other quasi-judicial functions which
are normally performed by public servants whos.e pay;        E
allowances and other incidentals of service are met out
of the public exchequer. [para 9] [1123-D-F]

     1.4 If instead of public servants, a person is
appointed whose pay, allowances and other incidentals        F
are not paid out of the public exchequer but directly paid
by a private employer such as respondent. no.4, for
whom the right of user is being acquired and by whom
the compensation is payable, persons interested in the
land will have reasonable grounds for assuming that          G
such a Competent Authority, who is dependent on a
private corporation for his salary, allowances,
accommodation and transport allowances, will have a
bias in favour of the private corporation. [para 9] [1123-
F-H]
                                                             H
    1110   SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A       Manak Lal, Advocate v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi ano
    Others AIR 1957 SC 425 - relied on.

       Frame United Breweries Co. v. Bath Jusstiees (1926
    Appeal Cases 586 - referred to.

B      1.5 There is no dispute in the instant case that the
  salary, allowances, accommodation and transport were
  being borne by the respondent-company directly. Thus,
  the Competent Authority was virtually an employee of
  respondent no.4-company and there were grounds for
C the appellants to entertain a reasonable apprehension in
  their mind that the Competent Authority will not act fairly
  and is likely to act with bias. Thus, the entire proceedings
  for determination of compensation before the Competent
  Authority concerned in the instant case would be a
D nullity. [para 12) [1125-D-F]

        Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Yashwant
    Gajanan Joshi and Others 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 434 = 1991
    Supp (2) SCC 592 - relied on.
E      1.6 The impugned orders of the High Court as well
  as the proceedings for determination of compensation in
  the case of the appellants only are set aside. However, it
  is made clear that this judgment will not affect any of the
  orders passed by the Competent Authority concerned
F with regard to acquisition of the right of user, as the
  appellants challenged the appointment in the writ
  petitions before the High Court in the instant case only
  after the incumbent started the proceedings for
  determination of compensation. The Union of India is
G directed to appoint another unbiased person for
  determination of compensation payable to the appellants.
  [para 14) [1126-B-D]

       Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari
H   Ram (Co-Education) Higher Secondary School, and Others
TRILOK SUDHIRBHAI PANDYA v. UNION OF INDIA & 1111
                   ORS.

1993 (3) SCR 863 = (1993) 4 SCC 10; Indian Oil Corporation     A
and Others v. Raja Transport Private Limited 2009 (13)
SCR 510 = (2009) 8 SCC 520; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K.
Sharma 1996 (3) SCR 972 =(1996) 3 SCC 364; P.O. Agrawal
v. State Bank of India 2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 454 = (2006) 8
SCC 776 and Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India 2007          B
(3) SCR 95 = (2007) 4 SCC 54; Union Carbide Corporation
v. Union of India 1991 (1) Suppl. SCR 251 = (1991) 4 SCC
584 - cited.

                    Case Law Reference:
                                                               c
 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 434        relied on         para 4
 1988 (1) SCR 512               relied on         para 5
 1993 (3) SCR 863               cited             para 5
                                                               D
 2009 (13) SCR 510              cited             para 5
 1996 (3) SCR 972               cited             para 6
 2006 (1) Suppl. SCR 454        cited             para 6
 2007 (3) SCR 95               .cited             para 6       E
 1991 ( 1 ) Suppl. SCR 251      cited             para 6
 AIR 1957 SC 425                relied on         para 10
 1926 Appeal Cases 586          referred to       para 10      F
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
8629 of 2011.

    From the Judgment and. Order dated 06.12.2007 of the
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in SCA No. 9015 of 2007.    G
                             WITH
Civil Appeal No. 8630 and 8631 of 2011.

    P.S. Sudheer, Saroj Raichura and Haresh Raichura for the
Appellant.                                                     H
    1112    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2011] 12 S.C.R.


A       R.F. Nariman, K.R. Sasiprabhu, R. Chandrachud, Pretesh
    Kapur, Hemantika Wahi, Ashwini Kumar, S. Udaya Kumar
    Sagar, Bina Madhavan, Vinita Sashidharan (for Lawyer's Knit
    & Co.) and Khaitan & Co. for the Respondents.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
8
        A. K. PATNAIK, J.

    Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.17022 of 2008
    and 17021 of 2008:
c       1. 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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H
TRILOK SUDHIRBHAI PANDYA v. UNION OF INDIA & 1113
           ORS: [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

and in the adjoining States ofRajasthan and Madhya Pradesh            A
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                B
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           c
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 rio avail, the
appellants filed writ petitions (Special Civil Application            D
Nos.9015 of 2007 and 9016 of2007) 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      E
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               F
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 arid perquisites directly from RGTIL
and was provided rent free accommodation and use of the               G
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 Others [1991 Supp (2) SCC 592] wherein a similar            H
    1114     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 12 S.C.R.

A 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
3 respondent no.4 and his primary duty was to determine the
  compensation as provided under Section 10 of the Act, which
  also has in-built guidelines for such determination and if the
  owner of the land is aggrieved with the determination of
  compensation, he has a remedy by way of filing an application
c before the District Judge for determination of the compensation.
  The High Court accordingly dismissed the writ petitions.

        5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
  the High Court wrongly relied on the decision of this Court in
  Hindustan. Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Yashwant Gajanan
D Joshi and Others (supra) because the acquisition of the right
  of user in that case was for a public sector company and an
  employee of a public sector company had been appointed as
  the Competent Authority, but in the prest::1it case the acquisition
  of right of user was in favour of the respondent no.4, which is a
E private sector company and this private sector company was
  paying the salary, allowances and all other incidentals of the
  Competent Authority. They submitted that in the aforesaid case
  of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Yashwant
  Gajanan Joshi and Others (supra) this Court has observed that
F it would altogether be a different case if it was a case of a
  private employer and his employee was appointed as a
  Competent Authority and had further observed that a case of
  person in private employment cannot be equated with that of a
  person in public employment. They submitted that the law is well-
G settled that not only actual bias but also the apparent likelihood
  of a bias vitiates the appointment of an adjudicating authority.
  In support of this submission, they relied on the decisions of
  this Court in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Others [(1987)
  4 SCC 611], Rattan Lal Sharma v. Managing Committee, Dr.
H Hari Ram (Co-Education) Higher Secondary School, and
TRILOK SUDHIRBHAI PANDYA v. UNION OF INDIA & 1115
           ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
Others [(1993) 4 SCC 1O] and Indian Oil Corporation and            A
Others v. Raja Transport Private Limited [(2009) 8 SCC 520].
They submitted that the very fact that the expenses of pay and
allowances and all other incidentals of the Competent Authority
are directly borne by the respondent no.4 is enough to establish
that the Competent Authority is an employee of the respondent      B
no.4 and there were sufficient circumstances to create a
reasonable apprehension in the mind of the appellants that the
Competent Authority was likely to act with bias while
determining the compensation payable to the appellants.

      6. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents submitted   C
that the respondent no.4 had no role in the appointment of the
Competent Authority and it was the State Government which
made the recommendation and the Central Government which
made the appointment by a notification under Section 2(a) of
the Act. He further submitted that under Section 10 of the Act     D
the Competent Authority determines the compensation payable
to the landowners but it does not exercise a judicial function.
He submitted that the compensation determined by the
Competent Authority is only in the first instance and if the
amount so determined is not acceptable to either of the parties    E
then the compensation shall, on an application by either of the
parties, be determined by the District Judge within the limits
of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. He further submitted
that the determination of the compensation by the Competent
Authority is also in accordance with the statutory rules, and in   F
particular Rules 4 and 4(a) of the Petroleum and Minerals,
Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 and
a perusal of these rules would show that they contained in-built
guidelines to be followed by the Competent Authority while
determining the compensation payable to the landowners. He         G.
submitted that this Court had in Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. v. Yashwant Gajanan Joshi and Others
(supra) rejected a similar challenge to appointment of an
employee of the company in whose favour the right of user is
being acquired as the Competent Authority. He finally submitted    H
    1116         SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [2011) 12 S.C.R.


~  that it is well-settled that violation of principles of natural justice
   will be a ground for the Court to interfere only if actual prejudice
   is shown by the person aggrieved. In support of this proposition,
   he relied on State Bank ·of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma ((1996) 3
   SCC 364), P.O. Agrawal v. State Bank of India ((2006) 8 SCC
13 776) and Ashok Kumar Sankar v. Union of India ((2007) 4
   SCC 54) . .He also cited the decision of this Court in Union
   Carbide Corporation v. Union of India ((1991) 4 SCC 584) in
   support this submission that an appeal to a neutral District
   Judge as provided in Section 10 of the Act would wash away
c  bias, if any, at the original stage.

         7. For deciding the questions raised in these appeals, we
    have to refer to the relevant provisions of Sections 2(a), 5, 6,
    10, 11 and 12 of the Act:

D       2(a) "Competent Authority" means any person or
        authority authorised by the Central Government, by
        notification in the Official Gazette, to perform the functions
        of the Competent Authority under this Act and different
        persons or authorities may be authorised to perform all or
E       any of the functions of the competent authority under this
        Act in the same area or different areas specified in the
        notification."

        5. Hearing of objections:-

F          (1)    Any person interested in the land may, within twenty-
                  one days from the date of the notification under sub-
                  section (1) of section 3, object to the laying of the
                  pipelines under the land.

G          (2)    Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made
                  to the Competent Authority in writing and shall set
                  out the grounds thereof and the Competent
                  Authority shall give the objector an opportunity of
                  being heard either in person or by a legal
                  practitioner and may, after hearing all such
H
            1118         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 12 S.C.R.


    A                     therein shall vest absolutely in the Central
                          Government free from all encumbrances.

                   (3)    Where in respect of any land, a notification has been
                          issued under sub-section (1) of section 3 but [no
                          declaration in respect of any parcel of land covered
B
''                        by that notification has been published under this
                          section] within a period of one year from the date
                          of that notification, that notification shall cease to
                          have effect on the expiration of that period.

    .,,"'          (3-A) No declaration in respect of any land covered by a
                         notification issued under sub-section (1) of section
                         3, published after the commencement of the
                         Petroleum Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User
                         in Land) Amendment Act, 1977 (13 of 1977), shall
D                        be made after the expiry of three years from the
                         date of such publication.

                   (4)    Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
                          (2), the Central Government may, on such terms
                          and conditions as it may think fit to impose, direct
E
                          by order in writing, that the right of user in the land
                          for laying the pipelines shall, instead of vesting in
                          the Central Government vest, either on the date of
                          publication of the declaration or, on such other date
                          as may be specified in the direction, in the State
F
                          Government or the corporation proposing to lay the
                          pipelines and thereupon the right of such user in the
                          land shall, subject to the terms and conditions so
                          imposed, vest in that State Government or
                          corporation, as the case may be, free from all
G                         encumbrances.
               10. Compensation.

                   (1)    Where in the exercise of the powers conferred by
                          section 4, section 7 or section 8 by any person, any
H
TRILOK SUDHIRBHAI PANDYA v. UNION OF INDIA & 1119
           ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

            damage, loss or injury is sustained by any person        A
            interested in the land under which the pipeline is
            proposed to be, or is being, or has been laid, the
            Central Government, the State Government or the
            corporation, as the case may be, shall be liable to
            pay compensation to such person for such damage,         B
          . loss or injury, the amount of which shall be
            determined by the Competent Authority in the first
            instance.

    (2)    If the amount of compensation determined by the
           Competent Authority under sub-section (1) is not         C
           acceptable to either of the parties, the amount of
           compensation shall, on application by either of the
           parties to the District Judge within the limits of
           whose jurisdiction the land or any part thereof is
           situated, be determined by that District Judge.          D

    (3)    The Competent Authority or the District Judge while
           determining the compensation under sub-section
           (1) or sub-section (2), as the case may be, sh~ll
           have due regard to the damage or loss sustained           E
           by any person interested in the land by reason of-

           (i} the removal of trees or standing crops, if any, on
           the land while exercising the powers under section
           4, section 7 or section 8;
                                                                     F
           (ii) the temporary severance of the land under which
           the pipeline has been laid from other lands
           belonging to, or in the occupation of, such person;
           or
                                                                    G
           (iii) any injury to any other property, whether
           movable or immovable, or the earnings of such
           persons caused in any other manner:

   Provided that in determining the compensation no account
                                                                    .H
    1120         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011) 12 S.C.R.


A      shall be taken of any structure or other improvement made
       in the land after the date of the notification under sub-
       section (1) of section 3.

           (4)     Where the right of user of any land has vested in
                   the Central Government, the State Government or
3
                   the corporation, the Central Government, the State
                   Government or the corporation, as the case may
                   be, shall, in addition to the compensation, if any,
                  ·payable under sub-section (1), be liable to pay to
                   the 0wner and to any other person whose right of
c                  enjoyment in that land has been affected in any
                   manner whatsoever by reason of such vesting,
                   compensation calculated at ten per cent. of the
                   market value of that land on the date of the
                   notification under sub-section (1) of section 3.
D
           (5)    The market value of the land on the said date shall
                  be determined by the Competent Authority and if
                  the value so determined by that authority is not
                  acceptable to either of the parties, it shall, on
E                 application by either of the parties to the District
                  Judge referred to in sub-section (2), be determined
                  by that District Judge.

           (6)    The decision of the District Judge under sub-
                  section (2) or sub-section (5) shall be final.
F
       11. Deposit and payment of compensation.

           (1)    The amount of compensation determined under
                  section 10 shall be deposited by the
G                 Central Government, the State Government or the
                  corporation, as the case may be, with the
                  Competent Authority within such time and in such
                  manner as may be prescribed.

           (2)    If the amount of compensation is not deposited
H                 within the time prescribed under sub-section (1), the
TRILOK SUDHIRBHAI PANDYA v. UNION OF INDIA &1121
           ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

           Central Government, the State Government or the           A
           corporation, as the case may be, shall be liable to
           pay interest thereon at the rate of six per cent. per
           annum from the date on which the compensation
           had to be deposited till the date of the actual
           deposit.                                                  B

    (3)   As soon as may be after the compensation has
          been deposited under sub-section (1) the
          Competent Authority shall, on behalf of the
          Central Government, the State Government or the            C
          corporation, as the case may be, pay the
          compensation to the persons entitled thereto.

    (4)   Where several persons claim to be interested in the
          amount of compensation deposited under sub-
          section (1 ), the Competent Authority shall                D
          determine the persons who in its opinion are
          entitled to receive the compensation and the
          amount payable to each of them.

    (5)    If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the      E
           compensation or any part thereof or as to the
           persons to whom the same or any part thereof is
           payable, the Competent Authority shall refer the
           dispute to the decision of the District Judge within
           the limits of whose jurisdiction the land or any part
           thereof is situated and the decision of the District      F
           Judge thereon shall be final.

   12. Competent Authority to have certain powers of
   civil courts.
                                                                     G
     The Competent Authority shall have, for the purposes of
  · ·this-Act, all the powers of a civil court while trying a suit
     under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in
     respect of the foll9y,,,in_g matters, namely:- .
                                                                     H
    1122         SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A          (a)    summoning and enforcing the attendance of any
                  person and examining him on oath;

           (b)    requiring the discovery and production of any
                  document;
B          (c)    reception of evidence on affidavits;

           (d)    requisitioning any public record from any court or
                  office;

           (e) . issuing commission for examination of witnesses.
c
          8. A reading of the Section 2(a) of the Act shows that the
     person to be appointed as Competent Authority is to perform
    all or any of the functions of the Competent Authority under the
    Act in the same area or different areas specified in the
D   notification. Accordingly, the Competent Authority is to hear
    objections of persons interested in the land to the laying of the
    pipelines under the land an-. the order passed by the
    Competent Authority under Section 5 is final. On the basis of
    the repor:t of the Competent Authority, the Central Government,
E   if satisfied that the land is required for laying any pipelines for
    the transport of petroleum or any mineral, may declare under
    Section 6 of the Act that the right of user in the land for laying
    the pipelines should be acquired and on the publication of such
    declaration, the right of user in the land specified in the
F   declaration shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free
    from all encumbrances. Under Section 10 of the Act, the
    Competent Authority in the first instance is to determine the
    compensation payable to a person interested in the land under
    which the pipeline is proposed to be, or is being, or has been
G   laid for any damage, loss or injury sustained by him. Under
    Section 11, the amount of compensation determined under
    Section 10 is to be deposited with the Competent Authority
    within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed and
    the Competent Authority is to pay on oehalf of the Central
H   Government, the State Government or the Corporation, as the
TRI LOK SUDHIRBHAI PANDYA v. UNION OF INDIA & 1123
            ORS. [AK. PATNAIK, J.]

case may be, the compensation to the persons entitled thereto        A
and where several persons claim to be interested in the amount
of the compensation, the Competent Authority is to determine
the persons who in its opinion are entitled to receive the
compensation and the amount payable to each of them. Under
Section 12, the Competent Authority has all the powers of a          B
Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 for summoning and enforcing the attendance of any
person and examining him on oath, requiring the discovery and
production of any document, reception of evidence on
affidavits, requisitioning any public record from any court or       c
office and issuing commission for examination of witnesses.

      9. The aforesaid reference to th~ various provisions of the
Act show that the Competent Authority has got vast powers,
which affects the rights of persons interested in the land over
which the pipeline is to be laid and on the reports of the           D
Competent Authority, the Central Government and the State
Government are to take decisions affecting the rights of
persons interested in the land. Under the provisions of the Act,
therefore, the Competent Authority does not merely determine
the compensation at the first instance in accordance with the        E
statutory rules as has been contended by learned counsel for
the respondent no.4, but has to perform various other quasi-
judicial functions which are normally performed by public
servants whose pay, allowances and other incidentals of service
are met out of the public exchequer. If instead of public            F
servants, a person is appointed whose pay, allowances and
other incidentals are not paid out of the 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 is payable, persons interested in the land will         G
have reasonable grounds for assuming that such a Competent
Authority, who is dependent on a private corporation for his
salary, allowances, accommodation and transport allowances,
will have a bias in favour of the private corporation.
                                                                     H
    1124     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A       10. This Court as early as in 1957 held in Manak Lal,
    Advocate v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi and Others [AIR 1957
    SC 425] that 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
6   judicial administration that judges should be able to act
    impartially, objectively and without any bias. In the aforesaid
    decision, this Court also held:

         "But where pecuniary interest is not attributed but instead
         a bias is suggested, it often becomes necessary to
c        consider whether there is a reasonable ground for
         assuming the possibility of a bias and whether it is likely
         to produce in the minds of the litigant or the public at large
         a reasonable doubt about the fairness of the administration
         of justice. It would always be a question of fact to be
D        decided in each case."

  In the aforesaid decision, the observations of Viscount Cave
  L.C. in Frome United Breweries Co. v. Bath Jusstiees (1926
  Appeal Cases 586 at p.590) that the rule that every member
E of a Tribunal must be able to act judicially and without bias
  applies not only to judicial Tribunals but also in the case of
  authorities which have to act as Judges of the rights of others.
  In aforesaid decision, this Court also held that it would always
  be a question of fact to be decided in each case whether there
F is a reasonable ground for assuming the possibility of a bias
  and whether it is likely to produce in the minds of the litigants
  or the public at large a reasonable doubt about the fairness of
  the administration of justice.

       11. In Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Others (supra),
G M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. writing the judgment for the Court held
  in Paras 16 and 17 of the judgment:

        "16. It is the essence of a judgment that it is made after
        due observance of the judicial process; that the court or
H       tribunal passing it observes, at least the minimal
TRILOK SUDHIRBHAI PANDYA v. UNION OF INDIA & 1125
           ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

    requirements of natural justice; is composed of impartial         A
    persons acting fairly and without bias and in good faith. A
    judgment which is the result of bias 'or want of impartiality
    is a nullity and the trial 'coram non-judice'.

     17. As to the tests of the likelihood of bias what is relevant
                                                                      8
     is the reasonableness of the apprehension in that regard
     in. the mind of the party. The proper approach for the judge
     is not to look at his own mind and ask himself, however,
     honestly, "Am I biased?" but to look at the mind of the party
     before him."
                                                                      c
       12. Thus, as per the judgment of this Court 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. There is no            D
dispute in the present case that the salary, allowanc.es,
accommodation and transport were being borne by the
respondent-company directly. Thus, the Competent Authority
was virtually an employee of the respondent no.4-company and
there were grounds for the appellants to entertain a reasonable       E
apprehension in their mind that the Competent Authority will not
act fairly and is likely to act with bias. In the judgment of this
Court in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India. and Others (supra) it
has been held that a judgment which is the result of bias or want
of impartiality is a nullity and the trial coram non-judice. Thus,    F
the entire proceedings for determination of compensation
before Shri V.I. Gohil would be a nullity.

     13. In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Yashwant
Gajanan Joshi and Others (supra), relied on by the High Court
as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.4, this Court        G
has clearly made a distinction between a public corporation and
private employer. In para 13 of the judgment, this Court has
held:
     ".... It would be to broad a proposition to extend the theory    i-1
    1126    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A       of bias to exclude persons only because such person
        draws the salary from the bodies like public corporation,
        State Government. It would altogether be a different case
        if it was a case of a private employer and his employee.
        We cannot equate the case of a person in private
a       employment with that of a person in public employment. ... "

       14. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow these appeals, set
  aside the impugned orders of the High Court as well as the
  proceedings for determination of compensation in the case of
  the appellants only. We, however, make it clear that this
C judgment will not affect any of the orders passed by Shri V.I.
  Gohil with regard to acquisition of the right of user as the
  appellants challenged the appointment of Shri Gohil in the Writ
  Petitions before the High Court in the present case only after
  he started the proceedings for determination of compensation.
D We direct that the Union of India will appoint another unbiased
  pe!rson in place of Shri Gohil for determination of compensation
  payable to the appellants. No costs.

    Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Cl No.29771 of 2009
E       1. Leave granted.

          2. This is an appeal against the order dated 17.07.2009
    of the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Special
    Civil Application No.15424 of 2008.
F
         3. In Special Civil Application No.15424 of 2008, the
   appellants had challenged the appointment of Shri V.I. Gohil as
   Competent Authority under the Act by notification dated
   07.03.2006 and the High Court relying on the earlier order dated
G 06.12.2007 of the Division Bench of the High Court in Special
   Civil Application Nos.9015 of 2007 rejected the contention that
   the appointment of Shri V.I. Gohil as Competent Authority was
 1 invalid.


      4. For reasons stated in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP
H (C) Nos.17022 of 2008 and 17021 of 2008, we allow thif
TRILOK SUDHIRBHAI PANDYA v. UNION OF INDIA & 1127
           ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 17.07.2009 in            A
Special Civil Application No.15424 of 2008 as well as the
proceedings for determination of compensation in the case of
the appellants only. We make it clear thatthis judgment will not
affect any orders passed by Shri V.I. Gohil with regard to
acquisition of the right of user as the appellants filed the Writ   B
Petition before the High Court in the present case only at the
stage of determination of compensation. We direct that the
Union of India will appoint another unbiased person in place of
Shri Gohil for determination of compensation payable to the
                                              1
appellants. No costs.
                                                                    c
R.P.                                          Appeals allowed.