TRILOK SUDHIRBHAI PANDYA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 12 S.C.R. 1106 · Decided: 13-10-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 1106 
TRILOK SUDHIRBHAI PANDYA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8629 of 2011) 
OCTOBER 13, 2011. 
[R. V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Administrative Law: 
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 
H 
clear that the judgment will not affect any of the orders passed 
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. 
c . 
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 
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 
F 
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 
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] 
D 
Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Others 1988 (1) 
SCR 512

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.