Trilok Sudhirabhai Pandya vs The Union of India and Others

Honourable Mr.Justice A.M.Kapadia

By instant batch of seven petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are the owners and occupiers of the lands situated either at village Goja, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat or at village Amalsar, Taluka Gandevi, District Navsari, seek to challenge the notification dated 7.3.2006, Annexure A to the petition, issued by respondent No.1, Union of India, through the Secretary, Petroleum and Energy Department, New Delhi, under the provisions of clause (A) of Section 2 of the Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (''the Petroleum Act'' for short) appointing respondent No.3 as the Competent Authority to perform the function as a Competent Authority of respondent No.4 - Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited (''RGTIL'' for short), for determination of compensation on account of damage, loss or injury, sustained by the petitioner from whose land right of user is sought to be accured for laying pipeline, on the ground that it violates the fundamental rights of the petitioners of fair trial and impartial proceedings uninfluenced by any other extraneous factors under the Constitution of India since the notification dated 7.3.2006 at Annexure A is nothing but a clear-cut violation of fundamental principles of natural justice and rights of the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution of India as the petitioners apprehend that there is likelihood of said authority being influenced and getting carried away without being impartial and bias to the claimants and, therefore, it is prayed to issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction prohibiting and restraining respondent No.3 - competent authority from functioning and discharging his duties as the competent authority as per the notification dated 7.3.2006 issued by respondent No.1 and also prayed to issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the notification dated 7.3.2006 issued by respondent No.1 appointing respondent No.3 as the competent authority and further to quash and set aside all the earlier notifications, orders, communications and proceedings initiated under the signature of respondent No.3, competent authority as per the notification dated 7.3.2006 at Annexure A.

Since common questions of facts and law are involved in instant batch of seven petitions, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, all the petitions are heard together and decided by this common judgment and order, at the admission stage itself.

In order to appreciate the controversy raised in instant batch of petitions in a better perspective, it would be advantageous to refer to the facts stated in Special Civil Application No.9015 of 2007 filed by Trilok Sudhirbhai Pandya, a resident of village Goja, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat.

3.1. As per the averments made in the said petition, respondent No.1 - Union of India, through the Secretary, Petroleum and Energy Department, New Delhi, sought to acquire the right of user in the petitioner''s land under which pipe lines shall be laid and for that purpose notification under clause (A) of Section 2 of the Petroleum Act for acquisition as well as declaration u/s 6 of the Petroleum Act for acquisition of right of user have been issued and appointed respondent No.3 as competent authority by issuing notification dated 7.3.2006 published in the Official Gazette under the provisions of Clause (A) of Section 2 of the Petroleum Act. It is further case of the petitioner that by the said notification which came to be issued on 7.3.2006 whereby the place of function of the competent authority and the said notification is shown to be that of M/s. Reliance Gas Pipelines Limited, 101, Shivam Apartment, 9, Patel Colony, Bedi Bandar Road, Jamnagar -8 inasmuch as the competent authority has also been given the powers to decide the claim of the claimants against the Company and is expected to and authorised to sit in the office of the very same Company against which the claims of the claimants are to be decided against the Company.

3.2. It is contended by the petitioner that thereafter the respondent authorities issued notice/notification dated 22.7.2006 under the provisions of Section 6 (1) of the Petroleum Act with respect to the disputed property in question being Survey No.101, Block No.104 admeasuring about 1 Hector 85 Gunthas and 51 Ares which is equal to 4 Acres and 23 Gunthas. The said notice/notification came to be issued by the respondent authorities acquiring the said land of the petitioner. It is further contended by the petitioner that since he was not served with the Notice/Notification u/s 3 (1) of the Petroleum Act, the petitioner accepted the above mentioned notice, which is at Annexure B, with an objection and approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.20391 of 2006, inter alia, challenging the Notification u/s 6 (1) on the ground that the said notification is null and void since the said notification at Annexure B has been issued without giving notice or a notification u/s 3 (1) of the Petroleum Act. In the said petition, this Court issued notice to the respondent authorities and after hearing the parties, rejected the petition by order dated 15.12.2006.

3.3. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was left with no other recourse but to approach the competent authority appointed as per the notification at Annexure A by way of Application No.13 of 2007 for compensation under Rule 4 of the Petroleum Pipelines Acquisition of Right of User in Lands Rules, 1963 (''the Petroleum Rules'' for short) as well as under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act under which Rules are framed. By way of Application No.13 of 2007 dated 21.2.2007 the petitioner claimed compensation for the damages, losses and injuries caused to the disputed land mentioned in the said claim application. It is pointed out by the petitioner that since the Application No.13 of 2007 was pending and since the authorities of the respondent Company wanted to cut and demolish the trees standing on the disputed land of the petitioner without his claim being decided, the petitioner sought for police protection since there was a danger to his life in order to protect his trees from being cut down. It is also stated by the petitioner that thereafter in pursuance of and in connection with the claim application preferred by the petitioner, respondent No.3, competent authority issued a notice/notification to the advocate for the claimant asking him to remain present for the hearing of the Fact Claim Petition on 28.3.2007 at 12.00 hours at the official address mentioned in the said communication which is dated 14.3.2007 and in the said communication the office of the competent authority, respondent No.3, is shown to be that of "Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited, 1st floor, Anand Mahal Aptt., Anand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat", which is, in fact, the address of respondent No.3 Company from where the officers and the employees of respondent No.4, RGTIL, are operating and according to the petitioner, this aspect categorically goes to show that the competent authority on its own has decided his place of operation for deciding the claims of the claimants from the office of the RGTIL having its office at Surat.

3.4. It is also contended by the petitioner that thereafter the advocate for the claimant along with the claimant went to the office of the competent authority as mentioned in the said communication dated 14.3.2007 for the hearing which was kept at 12 O''clock in respect of the claim application of the petitioner. Thereafter the competent authority along with some other person with him came in the conference hall of respondent No.4 Company to conduct the proceedings of the claim application. The first contention raised by the claimants before the competent authority was that how could the competent authority sit, function, discharge his duties and decide the claim of the claimant against the respondent No.4 Company who was supposed to reimburse the claims by way of compensation by sitting in the very premises of the said company itself. It is the case of the petitioner that when this contention was raised, the competent authority requested the other person who was assisting him to go and bring the notification at Annexure A to verify his place of operation from where he is supposed to operate and decide the claims of the claimant against the company and also requested his assistant to go and call the officers of respondent No.4 Company to remain present in the said proceedings. Immediately thereafter the officers of respondent No.4 Company along with the GL Sharma, General Manager (Legal) came running in the conference hall along with the other officers and started asking questions to the competent authority as to what is happening and what is the issue in question. The assistant of the competent authority who was asked to go and bring the notification appointing the competent authority, which is at Annexure A, came along with the notification dated 7.3.2006 and instead of handing over the notification to the competent authority, gave it in the hands of the officers of respondent No.4 company for their satisfaction. At that time, the advocate for the claimants raised another objection and requested the competent authority not to give such a lot of leverage to the officers of respondent No.4 company who were representing the company in the said claim application. However, the competent authority, at that juncture, refused to adhere to any of the requests and prayers of the claimants and/or their advocate and showed an undue haste to proceed to decide the claim applications of the claimants without deciding the preliminary objections raised by the claimant regarding the place of operation and the place of functioning of the competent authority inasmuch as the claimants categorically, through their advocate, raised an objection that the competent authority could not function as a competent authority and decide the claim of the claimants against respondent No.4 Company sitting in the premises of respondent No.4 Company inasmuch as there is every likelihood of the competent authority being bias and getting influenced by the company and will not be able to decide the claims of the claimants judiciously without any bias and in an impartial manner and, therefore, the claimants requested the competent authority as to how could it be that the competent authority could sit in the premises of respondent No.4 Company and decide the claims against the company.

3.5. It is further case of the petitioner that at that time GL Sharma, General Manger (Legal) raised an objection that all the cell-phones and mobile phones of the claimants and everybody sitting there be confiscated till the hearing is over inasmuch as they apprehended that the claimants were recording the entire proceedings. The competent authority, without any powers, immediately adhered to the request of GL Sharma, General Manger (Legal) of respondent No.4 company and directed everybody sitting there, including the advocates, to hand over their mobile phones to the competent authority. The advocate of the claimant along with the claimants along with their colleagues immediately handed over the cell phones to the competent authority. Thereafter the petitioner requested the competent authority to record each and every incident which took place in the said proceedings so as to see that the entire matter goes on record and that it becomes a part of that record which was after lot of arguments, recorded by the competent authority against which G.L. Sharma, General Manger (Legal), on behalf of the respondent No.4 company, requested for an adjournment to answer the arguments raised by the advocate for the claimant with respect to the preliminary objection as well as the claim application and to this also the competent authority immediately adhered to and completed the proceedings for that particular day allowing respondent No.4 company to file their reply to the arguments raised by the claimant. Since the preliminary objection was raised before the competent authority, the petitioner also gave an application with respect to and in regard to the preliminary objection in writing to the competent authority asking him to decide the same in accordance with law.

3.6. On these factual grounds the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant batch of petitions praying for a writ of prohibition, prohibiting respondent No.3, competent authority, from functioning and discharging his duties as the competent authority under the notification dated 7.3.2006, at Annexure A, not only on the ground of the conduct of the competent authority smacks of only bias and partiality towards the company but mainly on the ground that the said notification dated 7.3.2006 appointing the competent authority for discharging his duties and functioning as competent authority from the address as mentioned in the said notification to be that of "101, Shivam Apartment, 9, Patel Colony, Bedi Bandar Road, Jamnagar -8" inasmuch as even the said notification at Annexure A required the competent authority to function from the office of RGTIL only which is at Jamnagar. According to the petitioner, the competent authority is required to decided the claim against the company of the claimant sitting very much under the roof and four walls of the premises of the company and, therefore, also the notification being bad and illegal, null and void requires to be struck down as being ultra virus since the fundamental rights of the petitioner to have a fair trial and a fair hearing are infringed inasmuch as the competent authority who is required to decide the claims of the petitioner cannot be expected to decide the claims of the petitioner against respondent No.4 company without any bias or partial attitude as demonstrated above when the said authority is sitting within the premises of the company itself.

The petitioner has filed further affidavit wherein it is asserted that respondent authority - respondent No.3, is working as an Assistant Area Manager and also a consultant for land purposes with Reliance Industries Limited since last approximately three years at Jamnagar. It is also averred that respondent No.3 - competent authority whenever comes to Surat to decide the claims of the claimants with respect to the impugned notification against the Company resides and stays and boards and lodges at the guest house of respondent No.4 company and because of this conduct of respondent No.3 the petitioner apprehends that the competent authority might not act in an unbiased manner while deciding his claim against respondent No.4 company. It is also stated in the further affidavit by the petitioner that Bolero jeep of the respondent No.4 company comes to pick up respondent No.3 from the station and drops him at the guest house when the competent authority visits Surat for deciding his claim. As per further case of the petitioner, the cumulative effect of all the above mentioned conduct of the competent authority shows and indicates a bias and according to the petitioner the competent authority should have observed at least the minimum requirement of fair-play and natural justice at least when he is functioning as a competent authority. In his further affidavit, the petitioner has expressed his apprehension that if the competent authority in the light of the conduct as narrated above and in the light of the notification under challenge is allowed to continue as such and decide his claim he would be partial towards the respondent company and would be biased against the petitioner because of the usage of all the facilities and infrastructure of the company by the competent authority.

4.1. On the aforesaid premises, the petitioner has filed the petition and claimed the reliefs to which reference is made in the prefatory paragraph of this judgment.

The petitions are contested by respondent Nos.1 and 3 by filing separate affidavits. Respondent No.3 in his affidavit has, inter alia, raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the petition. It is also stated that the petition is misconceived in law as well as on facts and, therefore, it is neither tenable nor maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. It is also stated that the petition is barred by delay and laches as the notification appointing the competent authority dated 7.3.2006 is sought to be challenged by the present petition which appears to have been filed somewhere in April 2007, after a period of one year and one month, and hence the petition is not maintainable only on the ground of delay and laches. It is also stated by the competent authority that the relief prayed for is barred on the ground that though the petitioner had an occasion to challenge the notification in view of his having approached this Court on earlier occasion, the petitioner has consciously chosen not to challenge the said notification and under the circumstances, even if it is assumed without admitting that the petitioner has a right to challenge the same, the said right is deemed to have been waived and under the circumstances, the writ petition, apart from being barred by delay and laches, is also barred by principles of waiver and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. The petitioner has filed Special Civil Application No.20391 of 2006 on the ground that there was no effective legal and valid service of notice u/s 3 (1) of the Petroleum Act as contemplated by the Petroleum Act and the Petroleum Rules and this Court after considering the Petroleum Act as well as the Petroleum Rules has dismissed the petition and in that petition the petitioner ought to have challenged the appointment of the competent authority as well. However, the petitioner has chosen not to challenge the appointment of the competent authority in that petition and, therefore, the petition is barred by the principles of res-judicata/constructive res judicata as far as it seeks to raise new contention which ought to have been raised. Therefore, it is an attempt on the part of the petitioner to have fresh round of litigation on the same controversy, which is impermissible in law and hence the petition deserves to be dismissed.

5.1. Respondent No.3 has also denied the averments made in paragraph 1 of the petition and submitted that a petition seeking a writ of prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable only against inferior court to prevent inferior court from usurping jurisdiction which is not legally vested in it. A writ of prohibition is a judicial writ issued by superior court of plenary jurisdiction forbidding the court to continue the proceedings which are in excess of jurisdiction or in contravention of the law of the land. Therefore, writ of prohibition is not maintainable.

5.2. The averments made in paras, 2, 3 and 4.1 so far as the allegations of bias made against him are also denied. It is also stated that at the conclusion of the proceedings, if the petitioner is aggrieved by his decision, remedy of filing an application to the District Judge is available to the petitioner and the District Judge shall determine the amount of compensation and, therefore, the petition is premature and deserves to be dismissed.

5.3. Respondent No.3 has also filed counter affidavit to the further affidavit of the petitioner wherein, inter alia, it is stated that false allegations have been made against him and that too at the age of 68 years when he has retired from the Government service after unblemished career in the year 1997. He has also specifically denied that he, in the past or at present or at any point of time, has ever worked as Assistant Area Manager in Reliance Industries Limited for last approximately three years in Jamnagar or in any capacity either as employee or consultant or have any relation with the Reliance Industries Limited. He has also denied that he has ever worked as consultant for land purposes with Reliance Industries Limited. In the reply affidavit he has also stated about his entire record from the date of joining service as a Clerk on 8.12.1958. It is also asserted by him that he is the competent authority of all districts of the entire Gujarat State. He works from Tuesday to Saturday from Surat and he occupies one rent free room. He has also denied that his conduct shows bias. He has also denied that he has not observed minimum requirement of fair-play and natural justice while working as competent authority. He has also denied that his conduct as competent authority by using the facilities of the company would amount to lacking in impartiality or would tilt his judgment on account of bias or partial approach towards the respondent company-RGTIL. According to him, there is no reasonable apprehension as alleged or expressed by the petitioner and the said allegations are false and frivolous.

On the aforesaid premises, it is stated that the petitions are devoid of merit and the same may be dismissed with exemplary cost.

Respondent No.1 - Union of India has also filed reply affidavit which has been sworn by S.B. Mandal, working as Under Secretary in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India. In his reply affidavit he has, inter alia, stated the scheme of the Petroleum Act. It is also stated that there is no provision in the Petroleum Act and the Petroleum Rules specifying as regards the premises in which a competent authority has to function. However, for the sake of convenience of the land owners in whose lands right of use is to be acquired under the Petroleum Act, the offices of the competent authorities are located as close as possible to the route of pipeline. He has also stated that depending upon the progress of the work, such offices are usually moved or relocated. This is done keeping in view of the convenience of the land owners to attend the hearing, etc., in the matter of determination of compensation, so as to make it less inconvenient for the interested/affected land owners, otherwise, they would be required to travel longer distances if the office is located at a particular place and there have been instances where competent authorities have also discharged their duties and functions from camps close to the site of the work/lands.

6.1. It is also stated that so far as competent authorities, who handle work as such while functioning as a part-time officer, they work from the office of which they are holding substantive charge. However, in cases of competent authorities, who have been appointed as full-time authorities, the office facilities are being provided by the "Corporation", as defined under clause (b) of Section 2 of the Petroleum Act. It it also stated that as regards part-time competent authorities are concerned, they are paid their usual salaries by the State Governments. The Corporation pays them honorarium for functioning as a competent authority under the Petroleum Act as the case may be. As regards full-time competent authorities are concerned, their pay, allowances and all other incidental expenses incurred during discharge of their duties, are to be borne by the Corporation. It is also pointed out that a competent authority has also to shift his office in accordance with the location of work/land. This is so done with the object of making it easier for the land owners to be able to represent their cases. Keeping in view this factor, the competent authority in instant petition is preferably justified in functioning from the premises at Surat, which is closer to the affected lands, so as to make it convenient for the land owners to represent themselves in the cases before the competent authority. It is also asserted that for the purpose of discharging functions pertaining to the present land, which are affected by the right of user being acquired, it is deemed convenient that the competent authority functions from Surat and there could be no legally sustainable objection about such functioning of the competent authority from Surat. It is also stated that the expenses, which are incidental to the discharge of duty and exercise of functions by competent authority, are to be paid by the Corporation as defined under the Petroleum Act for whose benefit the acquisition is resorted. However, merely because of the fact that such incidental expenditure and payments are borne by the Corporation would not in any manner affect the independence of such competent authority in the exercise of powers and discharge of functions under the Petroleum Act and it is more particularly so inasmuch as the competent authority is not adjudicating any rights of the land owners against the Corporation since his primary duty is to determine the compensation as is provided in Section 10 of the Petroleum Act, which also has in-built guidelines for the purpose of determination of the compensation. It is also averred that sub-section (4) of Section 10 provides that compensation at the rate of 10% of the market value of the land, on the date of notification u/s 3 (1) of the Petroleum Act is to be paid. Such market value of land is calculated using the circle rate or the average rate as calculated by the revenue officers. Apart from this, the compensation for any damage, loss or injury sustained by land owners is to be paid having regard to factors enumerated in clauses (i) to (iii) of Sub- Sections (1) and (3) of Section 10 of the Petroleum Act. Thus, the responsibility of the competent authority is only to determine the rightful compensation payable to the land owners without any prejudice to the interest of the Corporation. There is also a statutory remedy of appeal, which can be resorted to by any aggrieved party. This would include an appeal either on the content or on the determination of the market value. Thus this statutory legal framework provides sufficient scope of just determination of compensation by a Competent Authority appointed under the Petroleum Act, though the salary, allowances and incidental expenses incurred are paid by the Corporation. The mere fact that payment of the remuneration and the incidental expenses incurred in the discharge of such duties are to be borne by the Corporation concerned does not in any way affect the independence of the functioning of such authorities.

6.2. It is also asserted that there are many instances of competent authority being on deputation from the State of Gujarat and being dedicated to ONGC, sitting in the office of ONGC at Vadodara, coupled with the fact that pay, allowances and other incidental expenses of such competent authority, in the case of ONGC, are borne by ONGC itself. If a competent authority is dedicated solely for the company, the pay, allowances and incidental expenses are borne by the company. In case such a competent authority is not dedicated solely for a company, then he gets his pay and allowances from the concerned Department in which he is substantively employed.

6.3. It is also asserted by him that in the case of GAIL, in various States such as Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Bihar, Jharkhand and West Bengal, competent authorities on deputation function from the premises of GAIL whereas competent authorities appointed on part time basis and on honorarium function from their usual place of posting with the State Government on requirement basis only. In all such cases, the pay, allowances and incidental expenses of such competent authority are borne by GAIL. Similarly, in the case of RGTIL, such competent authorities have been appointed for the States of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu in addition to Gujarat. In all such cases, competent authorities assigned to RGTIL are provided with office facilities to discharge their responsibilities and functions under the Petroleum Act and such office facilities are provided as close as may be to the location of the route of pipeline depending upon the progress of the work. Thus offices are also at times temporarily moved or relocated closer to the area of work for convenience of the land owners, who are required to present their case to such authorities.

6.4. It is also averred that the address of the competent authorities as notified in the official gazette is only address of the registered office of RGTIL and it does not mean, nor does it require, that such a competent authority can function from such office only. It is also stated that as required for any other purpose, the mention of a permanent address is accordingly stated in the present notification, but it does not imply that the functioning has to be from the said office alone.

6.5. It is also averred that for the terms proposed and accorded, RGTIL is responsible for providing the competent authorities all logistical support, including premises, office and staff as and when demanded, depending upon the need of the area for the discharge of functions of such competent authorities. Their pay, allowances and other incidental expenses are remitted by GRTIL in accordance with the terms of the recommendations made by the respective State Governments at the time of nomination for appointment as competent authority. It is also stated that in the present case also, the Central Government has acted upon the recommendation of the State Government in the matter of appointment of three different competent authorities under the Petroleum Act to act as such for the projects referred to in the said recommendation.

6.6. In paragraph 4 of the said letter, it is also stated that the expenses of pay and allowances and any other incidental expenses of such competent authorities shall be borne by Gas Transport and Infrastructure Company Limited, now named as RGTIL from the date of joining of the company. It is also stated that the competent authority is acting independently. Till date no complaint has been received by respondent No.1 impairing the independence of the competent authority.

6.7. In sum and substance, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is not well-founded and there is no substance in the instant batch of petitions and, therefore, it is prayed to dismiss all the petitions leaving it open to the competent authority to exercise to discharge its functions as provided under the Petroleum Act.

Mr. SN Soparkar, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners in all the petitions, has submitted that so far as the four aspects i.e.,

(i) the competent authority holds hearing by sitting in the office of the respondent company RGTIL, and decides the claim of the petitioners against the very company RTGIL.

(ii) takes service of the officer of the respondent company - GRTIL,

(iii) stays at the premises provided by the respondent company - RGTIL and

(iv) also uses the vehicle provided by the respondent company - GRTIL,

there is no factual controversy. He, however, submitted that the aspect that the respondent competent authority gets affected by the dictates of the officers of the respondent company - GRTIL is a matter of perception. In this connection, no affidavit in reply, controverting the averments made in the petition is filed by the respondent company - RGTIL. Apropos the allegation that the competent authority is holding hearing at the premises of the respondent company, he has placed reliance on the notice fixing the hearing. He has thereafter referred to the scheme of the Petroleum Act and contended that there is no appeal provided against the decision of the District Judge determining the compensation payable to the petitioner on account of the damages, losses or injuries sustained by the petitioner, therefore, the competent authority ought to have acted in an independent and unbiased manner. It is highlighted by him that in earlier round of litigation i.e., in Special Civil Application No.20391 of 2006 and connected matters same advocate appeared for the competent authority as well as the respondent company - RGTIL and, therefore, according to him, by filing common appearance there is commonality of interest. In instant case, according to him, the distance, which is required to be maintained by a competent authority (judge), is obliterated. According to him, as per the scheme of the Petroleum Act, bill for the pay, allowances and the expenses of the competent authority are to be put up to the State Government, who in turn reimburse the same and claim from the concerned company but it cannot be directly claimed from the respondent company. According to him, the competent authority ought to have raised the bills before the State Government and the State Government should have reimbursed the same and then claimed it from the respondent company - RGTIL. It is also pointed out by him that in the affidavit in reply filed by the Union of India it is stated that the competent authority is advised to hold the hearing at the local place or site instead of calling everyone at its office but this does not mean that the competent authority can sit at the premises of the respondent company RGTIL and avail all the hospitalities provided by the respondent company - RGTIL. There is always a fear in the mind of the claimant when he is told to come to the premises of the other side where the competent authority is sitting and deciding the cases. It is also asserted by him that bias is not a matter which is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt but it is a matter of perception. It is asserted by him that the competent authority is supposed to be provided with logistic set up, premises and staff as and when demanded but by providing all such hospitalities to the competent authority who has to decide the claim of the petitioners against the respondent company - RGTIL directly by the company, the distance which is required to be maintained by the competent authority from the claimants and the respondent company is obliterated. It is also emphasized by him that whether the competent authority is a quasi- judicial authority or judicial authority, he is supposed to act in accordance with law, without predetermination or predisposition or bias. In sum and substance, his submission centers around that the competent authority is enjoying all the hospitalities of the respondent company and hence he may not be able to do justice while deciding the claim of the petitioner and naturally there would be a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the claimants that the competent authority is predetermined or biased. The competent authority was represented by a common advocate in the earlier petitions filed by the petitioners, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 20391 of 2006 and its companion petitions and even in the present petition the competent authority had instructed the advocate of the company to represent him, which is borne out from the order dated 2.5.2007. The only prayer of the petitioner is to change the competent authority and to appoint another person as the present competent authority is being influenced by the respondent company, consciously or unconsciously.

7.1. What is the true and correct interpretation and the meaning of ''bias'' and when the competent authority, whether quasi-judicial authority or judicial authority, acts with bias against one litigant and favours another litigant, he cannot be permitted to function as competent authority, Mr. Soparkar has relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court:

(i) Manak Lal Vs. Dr. Prem Chand,

(ii) Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and Others Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Another,

(iii) A.K. Kraipak and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others,

(iv) Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others,

(v) Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Yashwant Gajanan Joshi and others, 933;

(vi) State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Shivananda Pathak and Others,

(vii) Bihar State Mineral Dev. Corpn. and Another Vs. Encon Builders (I) Pvt. Ltd.,

(viii) R. v. Altrincham Justices, ex parte Pennington and another, (1975) 2 All ELR 78.

7.2. The contention of the respondents about constructive res judicata is not tenable at law since when the earlier petitions being Special Civil Application No. 20391 of 2006 and its companion petitions were filed, the cause of action to allege bias against the competent authority had never arisen.

7.3. On the aforesaid premises, according to him, the impugned notification dated 7.3.2006 issued by the Union of India - respondent No.1, appointing respondent No.3 as competent authority for the purpose of determination of compensation on account of the damage, loss or injury sustained by the petitioner, which is against the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner apprehends that there is likelihood of said authority being influenced and getting carried away without being impartial and bias to the claimants, may be quashed and set aside and thereby respondent No.3 may be restrained from functioning as competent authority by issuing a writ of prohibition and, therefore, he urges that this group of petitions may be allowed.

7.4. Alternatively, it is also submitted by him that this Court vide order dated 2.5.2007 passed an interim order in Special Civil Application No. 9015 of 2007 and directed that the petitioner shall not be entitled to interest on the amount of compensation which may be awarded from the date of filing of the petition, which is April 2, 2007, till the disposal of the petition. This is an order passed at an interlocutory stage. Against the said order, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court by way of filing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.9265 of 2007 which came to be dismissed on the ground that the impugned order is an interim order, with a clarification that any observation made in the impugned order is confined only to the interim stage only. It is also submitted that it is settled position of law that an order passed at an interlocutory stage has no bearing at the time of final hearing of the proceedings and, therefore, if this Court comes to the conclusion that the petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed, in that circumstances, direction may be issued to award interest in favour of the claimant as per the provisions contained under the Petroleum Act.

Mr. KS Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate for M/s. Nanavati Associates for the respondent Company in all the petitions, has submitted that the petitioner has sought relief against the appointment of the competent authority and no relief is claimed against the respondent Company. He has further submitted that the appointment of the competent authority is made by the Union of India and the respondent Company had no role to play in his appointment. No action of the respondent Company is challenged by the petitioner in the petition. Since no relief is claimed against the respondent Company, it is immaterial as to whether the respondent Company has filed affidavit in reply or not with regard to the appointment of the competent authority and also with regard to the alleged bias. It is also asserted by him that the respondent Company is not concerned as to whether ''A'' is appointed as competent authority or ''B'' is appointed as competent authority. He has also asserted that the respondent Company has no interest in any manner whatsoever with regard to the appointment of a particular person as competent authority because the respondent Company has no personal interest in any person and the person who is appointed as competent authority has to discharge his duties independently and has to take decision without any influence from any corner.

8.1. He has further submitted that in various States, competent authorities are appointed for the purpose of RGTIL and notifications for that purpose are also issues and in those notifications the address of the competent authorities shown is the same i.e., the office of RGTIL. By referring to the affidavit in reply filed by the Union of India he has shown that in the notifications issued in respect of other States also the office of the competent authority mentioned is that of RGTIL. It is submitted by him that in instant case the principle of necessity would apply.

8.2. He has further submitted that all facilities, including the office facilities, are given by the Company in the case of full time competent authority. It is not an isolated case where office and other facilities are provided to the competent authority by the Company. He has pointed out that as per the terms of appointment of the competent authority, all expenses and expenditures are to be borne by the Corporation Company. The terms of appointment does not provide that the competent authority should first submit bill to the State Government and then State Government makes payment to the competent authority and thereafter the Corporation Company shall reimburse the State Government.

8.3. It is also emphasised by Mr. Nanavati that it is not the case of the petitioner that any additional benefit or facility is given to the respondent No.3 - competent authority. He has further submitted that no benefit, beyond the benefits available to the competent authority, as per the terms of appointment, is given to the competent authority by the respondent Company. It is pointed out by him that as per the terms of appointment of competent authority, the Corporation-Company has to incur the expenses for the office, staff, infrastructure, etc., of the competent authority. Therefore, if the Company takes an office on rent and appoint staff and provides other facilities to the competent authority or it provides an office in the premises of the company itself and also provides staff and other facilities to the competent authority, that would not make any difference, as in both the cases, the expenditures are to be borne by the company and the competent authority, in any case, would be discharging his duties independently. It is further submitted by him that only because the payment of the competent authority is made by the respondent Company that does not show that the competent authority is not working independently.

8.4. It is further submitted by him that there is no relation of whatsoever nature the respondent Company has with the competent authority. He was neither an employee nor a consultant of the respondent Company. He further submitted that ''joining the company'' means "joining the duties as a competent authority" and "not as an employee of the company".

8.5. After referring to Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is submitted that under the Land Acquisition Act also the charges of any incidental to such acquisition, that is, pay, allowances, perquisites, etc., of such officer shall be defrayed from or by such fund or Company. Similarly, in the instant case also the pay, allowances, perquisites, etc., of the competent authority are to be borne by the Company in whose favour the right of user is sought to be acquired. Therefore, no illegality whatsoever is committed if the competent authority is provided with such facilities by the respondent Company. He has further submitted that no financial impropriety is committed. No additional benefit is given to the competent authority by the respondent Company.

8.6. After referring to the affidavit in reply filed by the Union of India regarding payment to be made to the competent authority, it is submitted by him that shifting of office of the competent authority to Surat is justified. It is submitted by him that Surat is situated at the centre of all the Districts in which the acquisition is made and, therefore, the competent authority is functioning from Surat as it is accessible to all the claimants. Mr. Nanavati has further submitted that there are instances in the case of ONGC that the competent authorities are sitting in the office of ONGC and functioning as competent authorities. According to him, same is the case with GAIL also. It is further submitted by him that in Karnataka, Maharashtra, etc., office facilities are provided by RGTIL for the functioning of the competent authority. RGTIL is providing staff, office, infrastructure, etc., as per the terms of appointment, as and when demanded. It is also asserted by him that no benefit other than what is required to be given to the competent authority is given to the competent authority by the Company. No financial impropriety is committed by the respondent Company because whatever benefits are given to the competent authority by the Company are required to be given to the competent authority by the Corporation-Company as per the terms of appointment.

8.7. After referring to the Scheme of the Act, he has pointed out that decision of the competent authority is not final. It is only in the nature of an offer and unless and until it is accepted, it is not binding to the parties. It is highlighted by him that the decision of the competent authority would be only a tentative offer and if it is not acceptable to the parties, then the compensation will be decided by the District Court. If any of the parties is not agreeable to the offer of the competent authority, the aggrieved party can make an application to the District Judge and the decision of the District Judge shall be final as it will be a judicial decision.

8.8. He has also drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that many names were suggested and out of them one name is selected by the Union of India as competent authority. Respondent No.4 Company had nothing to do with the selection of the name of the competent authority.

8.9. It is further submitted by Mr. Nanavati that this is a case in which the petitioner has some suspicion that the competent authority is biased and would not do justice and the said suspicion has no valid basis. The apprehension of the petitioner that the competent authority may show favour towards the respondent Company is not well-founded.

8.10. What is the true and correct interpretation and the meaning of ''bias'' and also what is the test of bias, Mr. Nanavati has relied upon the following decisions:

(i) Secretary to Government, Transport Deptt., Madras Vs. Munuswamy Mudaliar and Another,

(ii) Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Union of India,

(iii) Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Yashwant Gajanan Joshi and others,

(iv) Rattan Lal Sharma Vs. Managing Committee, Dr. Hari Ram (Co-education) Higher Secondary School and others,

(v) Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India,

(vi) Smt. Bailamma @ Doddabailamma (Dead) and Others Vs. Poornaprajna House Building Co-operative Society and Others,

8.11. On the aforesaid premises, according to Mr. Nanavati, in view of the terms and conditions contained in the appointment letter issued by respondent No.1 appointing respondent No.3 as the competent authority, all the expenses of pay, allowance and incidentals of the competent authority are to be borne by RGTIL, therefore, it cannot be said that the competent authority would be biased in deciding the claims made by the petitioners against the respondent Company by favouring the Company. Therefore, there is no illegality committed by respondent No.1 by issuing the notification dated 7.3.2006 appointing respondent No.3 as competent authority. He, therefore, submitted that since all the petitions lack merit they deserve to be rejected at the admission stage. He, therefore, urged to dismiss all the petitions.

Mr. Harin P. Raval, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Respondent - Union of India as well as for the competent authority, has raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the petition, as, according to him, petition is barred by delay, laches as well as principle of constructive res-judicata, as the petition is filed after a period of more than one year from the date of issuance of notification. The petitioner had also challenged the notification issued u/s 6 of the Petroleum Act by filing Special Civil Application No. 20391 of 2006. At that time, the notification which is impugned under this petition, was very much in existence. However, the Petitioners, for the reasons best known to them, elected not to challenge the notification, which is impugned under this petition. There fore, the petitioners have waived their right to challenge the same. Mr. Harin P. Rawal, learned Assistant Solicitor General, after referring to the statement of object and the main features of the bill of the Petroleum Act, contended that there is inbuilt guidelines for the purpose of determination of compensation under the Petroleum Act, there fore, the officer appointed as competent authority has no discretion to determine the compensation on his own caprices and whims.The competent authority has to follow the provisions contained under the Petroleum Act for the purpose of determination of compensation.Therefore,the apprehension of bias, alleged by the Petitioners is not well-founded.It is merely a apprehension of fanciful bias.He has invited attention of this Court to the fact that there is no provision under the Petroleum Act and the Rules,specifying as regards the premises in which a competent authority has to function.However,for the sake of convenience of the landowners,in whose lands right of user is to be acquired under the Petroleum Act, the offices of the competent authority are located as close as possible to the route of pipeline. Depending upon the progress of the work, such offices are usually moved or relocated. So far as the present petitioners are concerned, they are mainly from Surat, Navsari and Valsad, and therefore, competent authority decide to sit at Surat. He has also pointed out that there is no provision either in the Petroleum Act or Rules that from where such competent authority has to function. Therefore, there is a consistent practice since the enactment of the Petroleum Act and there are sufficient instances of competent authority being on deputation from State of Gujarat and being dedicated to ONGC, sitting in the office of ONGC at Vadodara, coupled with the fact that pay, allowances and other incidental expenses of such competent authority, in the case of ONGC, are borne by said ONGC itself. Similarly in the case of GAIL (India), in various states, competent authorities on deputation, function from the premises of GAIL. It is also practiced that depending upon the work to be handled by the competent authority, if it does not demand a full-time officer, the State Government is requested by the Government of India to nominate a local Revenue Officer, usually a Sub-Divisional Officer, to work as the competent authority under the Petroleum Act, in addition to performing his usual duties. However, if the work to be handled by the competent authority, requires the services of a full time officer, the Government of India requests the State Government to propose the name of an officer, whose services could be utilized for functioning as a full time competent authority. This is the method of appointment of a competent authority. He has also asserted that there is no provision in the Petroleum Act or Rule as to how the salaries and other perquisites are to be paid to the competent authority. It is usual practice that the salaries and other perquisites are to be borne by the company or the corporation. Therefore, merely because the fact that such incidental expenditure and payments are borne by the Corporation, would not, in any manner, affect the independence of such Competent Authority in the exercise of powers and discharge of functions under the Petroleum Act. It is the practice that the competent authorities directly receive the pay, salary, perquisites and other incidental expenditure from the Corporation or the Company. He has also asserted that the function of the competent authority is not to adjudicate any rights of the landowners against the Corporation, since his primary duty is to determine the compensation, as is provided in Section 10 of the Petroleum Act., which also has in-built guidelines for the purpose of determination of compensation and aggrieved party can file an application before the District Judge for the purpose of redetermination of the compensation. He has also pointed out that as per the terms proposed and accorded, RGTIL is responsible for providing the competent authorities, all logistical support, including premises, office and staff, as and when demanded, depending upon the need of the area for the discharge of functions of such competent authorities. Their pay and allowances and other incidental expenses are remitted by RGTIL, in accordance with the terms of the recommendations made by the respective State Governments at the time of nomination for appointment as competent authority. He has also emphasized that so far as the ground mentioned by the petitioners, alleging the bias on part of the competent authority is concerned, they are merely fanciful bias and the same cannot be called bias on part of the competent authority. Simply because the competent authority receives the remuneration, perquisites and other facilities from the RGTIL, it is wrong to contend that he would be affected by the dictate of the officer of the company and he would decide the claim of the petitioners as per the sweet will of the company.

9.1 What is true and correct interpretation of "bias" and what is the test of "bias", he relied upon the following two reported decisions:

(i) Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Yashwant Gajanan Joshi and others,

(ii) International Airports Authority of India Vs. K.D. Bali and Anr,

9.2 On the aforesaid ground, according to him, the Respondent - Union of India is fully justified in appointing the respondent no.3 as a competent authority for the purpose of performing all the acts under the Petroleum Act, as there is a inbuilt mechanism under the Petroleum Act and as per the terms and conditions of the appointment letter, and the notification, all the expenses of pay and allowances of the competent authority shall be borne by the RGTIL and accordingly it is being borne by RGTIL. Whether the competent authority paid directly from RGTIL or it will be paid by the Union of India, which in turn recovered from the company, that does not ipso facto lead to conclusion that the competent authority would be bias to decide the compensation put forward by the petitioners and it will decide at the dictate of the officers of the RGTIL. Therefore, according to him, the petition lacks merit, deserves to be rejected at the admission stage. He, therefore, urged to dismiss all the petitions.

We have given our anxious and considerate thought to the rival submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the parties. We have also perused the Affidavit, Additional Affidavit filed by the petitioners, and Reply Affidavit as well as Additional Reply Affidavit filed by the competent authority and also the Reply Affidavit filed by the Union of India and the decisions cited at the bar.

In order to resolve the controversy raised in this petition, in better perspective, it would be advantageous to refer to statement of objects and the reasons for legislating the Petroleum Act:

As a result of the implementation of plans for the development of petroleum resources in the country, it is anticipated that in the next few years there will be a substantial increase in the production of crude oil, natural gas and petroleum products by the public sector oilfields and refineries in India. It has therefore become necessary to lay petroleum pipelines in the country to serve as an efficient and cheap means of transportation and distribution of petroleum and petroleum products.

Although land can be acquired outright for laying such pipelines under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 the procedure for such acquisition is long-drawn and costly. Since the petroleum pipelines will be laid underground outright acquisition of land is not necessary. Therefore, in the case of these pipelines it is considered sufficient to acquire the mere right of user in the land for laying and maintaining the pipelines. The Bill seeks to achieve the above purpose.

The main features of the Bill are:-

(i) No right of user of land can be acquired for the purpose of laying pipelines unless the Central Government declares its intention by notification in the Official Gazette, and unless objections, if any, filed within twenty-one days of that notification are disposed of by the competent authority.

(ii) When final declaration about acquisition is made the right to use land for the purpose of laying pipelines will vest in the Central Government, State Government or the corporation, as the case may be but notwithstanding such acquisition, the owner or occupier of the land shall be entitled to use the land for the purpose for which such land was put to use immediately before the declaration by the Central Government. But after the date of acquisition he shall not construct any building or any other structure or construct or excavate any tank, well, reservoir or dam or plant any three, on that land.

(iii) Compensation for the damage, loss or injury sustained by any person interested in the land shall be payable to such person. Besides this, compensation calculated at ten percent of the market value of the land on the date of the preliminary notification is also payable to the owner and to any other person whose right of enjoyment in the land has been affected by reason of the acquisition. The compensation in both cases is to be determined by the competent authority in the first instance and an appeal lies from its decision to the District Judge.

A plain reading of the statement of object and the main features of the bill, it is seen that there is a inbuilt guideline for the purpose of determination of compensation. As the Petroleum Act is enacted with a loadable object looking to the development of the petroleum resources in the country, it become necessary to lay pipeline in the country as a efficient and cheap means for transportation, and for that purpose, it is necessary to claim right of user in the land under which such pipelines have to be laid and for that purpose compensation has to be paid to the affected landowners from whose lands right of user is acquired and there is a inbuilt mechanism and guideline for the purpose of determination of compensation.

Since Mr. Harin P. Rawal, learned Assistant Solicitor General, has raised preliminary objection about the maintainability of the petition on the ground of delay and laches and by the principle of res-judicata, therefore, we shall deal with this contention first.

According to Mr. Harin P. Rawal, learned Assistant Solicitor General, petitioners had earlier filed Petition, being Special Civil Application No. 20391 of 2006, challenging the notification dated 25.8.2006, issued u/s 6 (1) of the Petroleum Act, at that time also the notification dated 7.3.2006, which is impugned under this petition, was very much in existence. At that time, petitioner has not challenged the said notification and elected to challenge the notification u/s 6 (1) only. Therefore, the petitioners have waived their right. Therefore, petition is barred by principle of constructive res-judicata as well as delay and laches.

14.1 Mr. S.N.Soparkar, learned senior counsel, in response to this submission, vehemently contended that the petitioners came to know about the alleged bias on part of the competent authority when the competent authority has started adjudicating the claim, therefore, petition is not barred by principle of constructive res- judicata.

14.2 There is no dispute that notification, which is impugned under this petition, appointing the competent authority, is issued on 7.3.2006, which was issued on the basis of communication dated 31.1.2006, written by the Under Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Gujarat and addressed to the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, New Delhi. There is also no dispute to the fact that the petitioners have also earlier challenged the notification dated 25.8.2006 u/s 6(1) of the Petroleum Act by filing Special Civil Application No. 20391 of 2006 on the ground that effective, legal and valid notice u/s 3(1) of the Petroleum Act was not served. The said petition came to be heard by a Division Bench of this Court (Coram: J.M.Panchal and Abhilasha Kumari, JJ). The Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 18.12.2006 dismissed the said petition. Therefore, according to us, when Special Civil Application No. 20391 of 2006 was filed, the notification which is impugned under these petitions, was very much in existence and the petitioners have not challenged the notification which is impugned under this petition at the time of challenging the notification issued u/s 6 (1) of the Petroleum Act. As per the notification, which is impugned under this petition, it mentioned about the pay and allowance to be borne by the RGTIL. The said notification is issued on the basis of the communication dated 31.1.2006 wherein it is stated that the expenses of pay and allowance and any other incidentals of the above officials shall be borne by the Gas Transportation & Infrastructure Company Ltd. from their date of joining the Company. Therefore, according to us, instant batch of petitions are barred by principle of constructive res-judicata because of the following reasons:

(a) That the notification appointing competent authority is dated 7.3.2006.

(b) At the time of his appointment, his terms and conditions were the same which are existing as on today, namely, that all pay and allowances and incidental expenses are to be borne by the RGTIL.

(c) That the competent authority appointed under the Act has to perform various functions and on issuance of notification u/s 3 of the Act he has to hear and decide objections that may be raised and render his decision which would ultimately lead to issuance of notification u/s 6 of the Petroleum Act.

(d) That the present competent authority had discharged those functions and duties under the Petroleum Act in respect of the land of the Petitioners.

(e) The petitioners undisputedly had filed earlier petitions challenging the proposed acquisition of the right of user.

(f) The challenge to the present order appointing competent authority could have been raised since very competent authority at the relevant point of time was discharging its other functions.

(g) The petitioners who were interested in obstructing the proceedings in any manner had chosen not to raise such challenge.

(h) There is no difference in the fact situation obtaining as on today by filing of the present petition.

(i) The petitioners not having taken such contention are estopped on the principle of constructive res judicata from raising such challenge in view of the dismissal of their earlier petitions.

Having held that the instant batch of petitions are barred by delay and laches as well as principle of constructive res-judicata, now the next question which falls for consideration of this Court is as to whether petitioners have make out the case of bias on part of the competent authority.

The petitioners have challenged the appointment of competent authority on the ground that officer is biased for the following reasons:

(a) That he discharges his functions from the premises of RGTIL.

(b) That his pay and allowances and perquisites are paid by RGTIL.

(c) That he uses rent free accommodation provided by RGTIL at Surat.

(d) That he uses facilities such as lodging, boarding and vehicle provided by RGTIL.

(e) That he acts as per the dictates of the officers of the RGTIL.

(f) That in the earlier round of proceedings, he was represented by same advocate who represented the RGTIL.

As per the communication dated 31.1.2006 written by the Under Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Gujarat, addressed to the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, New Delhi, there is a recital that expenses of pay and allowances and any other incidentals of the officials, shall be borne by the Gas Transportation & Infrastructure Company Ltd., from their date of joining the Company. On the basis of the said communication, Union of India has issued the impugned notice dated 7.3.2006. By referring the last line, Mr. S.N.Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel has contended that the date of joining is very relevant for the purpose of deciding the bias on part of the competent authority. According to him, the said letter unequivocally suggests that the competent authority has to join the company, which means he would be on the pay roll of the company. That reasonably suspect on part of the petitioners that the competent authority would not be able to adjudicate the claim put forward by the petitioners as he would be on the pay roll of the company.

17.1 According to us, the aforesaid submission, is misconceived, as the sentence; "from their date of joining the company" means they started functioning for the company as per the scheme of the petroleum Act. If the officer is to be appointed as a competent authority, there is no provision that from where he will he get the pay and allowances. However, by way of practice and convention, pay and allowance are to be borne by the company. Merely by using the sentence "from the date of joining the company", does not mean that the competent authority would join the company permanently and on permanent pay roll.

17.2 So far as the first four grounds submitted by the petitioners with regard to bias on part of the competent authority are concerned, there is no factual controversy. But that will not lead to conclusion that by the said undisputed fact situation, competent authority would be bias towards the petitioners.

17.3 So far as the first ground is concerned, it is factually incorrect. As per the assertion made by the competent authority in its affidavit, it is stated that the staff was appointed by the earlier competent authority, and it is the separate staff which is handling the work and assisting the competent authority while discharging his duties.

17.4 So far as the second ground, that is, use of the guest house is concerned, there is no question of any reimbursement. For his food and lodging expenses, all amounts are paid by the competent authority and reimbursement is claimed.

17.5 Use of the vehicle is only for the limited purpose of picking him up from the railway station and dropping him at the place of office and vice versa.

17.6 No material or particular is provided that the competent authority is acting under the dictate of the officers of RGTIL.

17.7 A perusal of the record and proceedings which are at Annexure-C to the Affidavit in Reply, according to us, the facts stated in the petitions are not only incorrect, but they are false to the knowledge of the petitioners. A further perusal of the record and proceedings, it is seen that the learned advocate, who appeared for the company, has raised the dispute that the competent authority cannot discharge his function from the premises of RGTIL. The learned advocate of the petitioners started submissions, which were not on point of issue, and therefore, the competent authority has adjourned the proceedings on the request made by the representative of the Company. The competent authority was discharging the function as per the usual practice and customs by discharging its function from the office of the RGTIL.

It is also alleged against the respondent no.3 that he was working as Assistant Area Manager of RGTIL. However, a perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of the aforesaid contention, he has not given any proof thereof except to make a bald statement. The said allegations are denied by the respondent no.3 in his additional reply affidavit. Respondent no.3 after giving service record and history of his service demonstrates that the averments per se false and incorrect. Therefore, it has to be held that the allegation made by the petitioners that the respondent no.3 was on pay roll of the RGTIL, are false and without any basis.

A careful reading of the statutory provisions contained under the Petroleum Act, there is no provision under the Petroleum Act and the Rules, specifying as regards the premises in which a competent authority has to function. However, for the sake of convenience of the landowners in whose lands right of use is to be acquired under the Petroleum Act, the offices of the competent authorities are located close as possible to the route of pipeline. Depending upon the progress of the work, such offices are usually moved or relocated. This is keeping in view the convenience of the landowners to attend the hearings, etc. in the matter of determination of compensation, so as to make it less inconvenient for the interested / affected landowners, otherwise, they would be required to travel longer distances if the office is located at a particular place. There are instances where competent authorities have also discharged their duties and functions from camps close to the site of the work / lands.

It is also practice that so far as the competent authorities who handle work as such while functioning as a part-time officer, they work from the office of which they are holding substantive charge. However, in cases of competent authorities, who have been appointed as full-time authorities, the office facilities are being provided by the Corporation, as defined under clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act. As regards part-time competent authorities, they are paid their usual salaries by the State Governments. The Corporation pays them honorarium for functioning as a competent authority under the Petroleum Act, as the case may be. As regards full-time competent authorities, their pay, allowances and all other incidental expenses incurred during discharge of their duties, are to be borne by the Corporation. The competent authorities have also to shift his office in accordance with the location of work / land. This is so done with the object of making it easier for the land owners to be able to represent their cases. Keeping in view this factor, the competent authority in the present case is perfectly justified in functioning from the premises at Surat, which is closer to the affected lands, so as to make it convenient for the landowners to represent themselves in the cases before the competent authority. These competent authorities make provision for logistical support, vehicles, etc. for movement along the pipeline route for conducting hearing of objections, drawing of panchnamas, determination of compensation, making of payments, arranging meetings with local officials, visiting land record offices, etc. These expenses, which are incidental to the discharge of duty and exercise of functions by competent authority, are to be paid by the Corporation, as defined under the Petroleum Act. However, merely because of the fact that such incidental expenditure and payments are borne by the company, would not, in any manner, affect the independence of such competent authority in the exercise of powers and discharge of functions under the Petroleum Act. It is more particularly so inasmuch as competent authority is not adjudicating any rights of the landowners against the Corporation, since his primary duty is to determine the compensation, as is provided u/s 10 of the Petroleum Act, which also has inbuilt guidelines for the purpose of determination of the compensation. Thus, the responsibility of the competent authority is only to determine the rightful compensation payable to the landowner without any prejudice to the interests of the Corporation. If the party is aggrieved with the determination of compensation, there is a remedy by way of filing application before the District Judge, which is substantive right and the District Judge has to redetermine the compensation.

It is also practice and there are sufficient instances of competent authority being on deputation from the State of Gujarat and being dedicated to ONGC, sitting in the office of ONGC at Vadodara, coupled with the fact that pay, allowances and other incidental expenses of such competent authority, in the case of ONGC, are borne by ONGC itself. Similarly in the case of GAIL (India) Limited, in various States such as Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Bihar, Jharkhand and West Bengal, competent authorities on deputation function from the premises of GAIL. Likewise in the case of RGTIL, such competent authorities have been appointed for the States of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu in addition to Gujarat. In all such cases, competent authorities assigned to RGTIL are provided with office facilities to discharge their responsibilities and functions under the Act and such office facilities are provided as close as may be to the location of the route of pipeline depending upon the progress of the work. In sum and substance, as per terms proposed and accorded, RGTIL is responsible for providing the competent authorities, all logistical support, including premises, office and staff, as and when demanded, depending upon the need of the area for the discharge of functions of such competent authorities. The pay, allowances and other incidental expenses are remitted by RGTIL, in accordance with the terms of the recommendations made by the respective State Governments at the time of nomination for appointment as competent authority. In the present case also, as per the recommendation of the Under Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat dated 31.1.2006, the Central Government has acted upon the recommendation of the State Government in the matter of appointment of 3 different competent authorities under the Petroleum Act to act as such for the projects referred to in the said recommendation. 22. It is required to be mentioned that the learned advocates appearing for the parties have relied upon so may reported decisions of the Supreme Court with regard to the true and correct interpretation and meaning of "Bias" and what is the test of "Bias". The decisions relied upon by the learned advocates appearing for the parties rested on the facts of those reported decisions and have hardly any relevance to the facts of the instant case. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to deal with those decisions in prolix, and with a view not burden this judgment more, this Court deem it expedient not to discuss all those reported decisions of the Supreme Court. However, few of them are relevant for the purpose of deciding the case on hand, which we shall discuss in this judgment in detail.

In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (supra), which is relied upon by all the learned advocates appearing for the parties, Supreme Court has occasion to consider the test of "Bias" on part of the competent authority appointed under the Petroleum Act, with which we are very much concerned in this petition. In the said case question of appointment of one Ms. A.R.Gadre, as a competent officer was under challenge. In the said case there was clear averment made in the affidavit- in-reply filed by the claimant in this regard that after the retirement of the competent authority Mr. G.S.Parte, Mrs. A.R.Gadre who was special land officer in the office of competent authority was appointed as competent authority vide Notification dated June 6, 1988. Compensation case was decided by the Additional District Judge in favour of the claimant. Mrs. A.R.Gadre in her own name filed a Writ Petition No. 3606 of 1989 challenging the legality of the award passed by the Additional District Judge. In the said petition she had also prayed for the stay of the further acquisition proceedings. The grievance of the claimant was that some interim orders of stay were also obtained in the aforesaid writ petition behind the back of the claimant. Even contempt proceedings have also been initiated by the claimant against Mrs. A.R.Gadre and which were still pending before the Bombay High Court. The High Court by the impugned order had removed Mrs. Gadre to function as competent authority on the ground of bias, and thereafter the Union of India accepted the above position and sought further time to comply with the directions of the High Court. While dismissing the SLP filed by the HPCL, Supreme Court has taken the view that the claimant was right in contending that Mrs. A.R.Gadre may have bias while determining the amount of compensation as she herself was a litigating party in the very matter in the High Court against the claimant. And thus, in the mind of the claimant, there was apprehension which was well-founded and on this ground Supreme Court do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the Bombay High Court holding that the appointment of Mrs. Gadre was not valid. However, Supreme Court made it clear that they do not agree with the general proposition of the High Court that an officer of the Corporation cannot be appointed as a ''competent authority'' because he may be biased in favour of the Corporation by reason of his employment.

23.1 A careful reading of the aforesaid reported decision, it is seen that Mrs. A.R.Gadre was working with the HPCL for whose benefit pipeline was to be laid and for that purpose right of user from the land of the claimant was acquired and Union of India has appointed Mrs. A.R.Gadre as competent authority who was on the pay roll of the HPCL. Supreme Court, however, did not agree with the general proposition of the High Court of Bombay that the officer of the Corporation cannot be appointed as competent

authority, because ''bias'' has to be tested on the facts and circumstances of each case.

The principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Hidustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (supra) is rested on the facts of that case. However, on the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of that case, Supreme Court, on the contrary, did not agree with the general proposition of the High Court that an officer of the Corporation cannot be appointed as a ''competent authority'' because he may be biased in favour of the Corporation by reason of his employment.

24.1 So far as the facts of the instant case are concerned,as per the avements made in the reply affidavit filed by the respondent no.3 appointed as competent authority,he was neither in the employment of the Company in the past nor at present he is in the employment of the Company.He was in the employment of the administrative department of the Government of Gujarat and he has retired from the said post, and after his retirement, on the basis of the recommendation made by the Under Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Gujarat to the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, New Delhi, has been appointed to function as a competent authority. Simply because he is discharging the function from the premises, getting pay and allowance and perquisites directly from RGTIL and provided rent free accommodation and use the vehicle for limited purpose ipso fact cannot be a decisive factor that he would be bias towards the petitioners while deciding his claim against the RGTIL.

What is real test of ''bias'' has been succinctly explained by the Supreme Court in the reported decision of International Airports Authority of India (supra). In paragraph 6 of the said judgment, Supreme Court has held has under:

In the words of Lord O. Brien, LCJ there must be a real likelihood of bias. It is well settled that there must be a real likelihood of bias and not mere suspicion of bias before the proceedings can be quashed on the ground that the person conducting the proceedings is disqualified by interest. See in this connection Gullapalli Nageswara Rao etc. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, and Mineral Development Ltd. Vs. The State of Bihar and Another, Recently this Court in a slightly different context in Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, had occasion to consider the test of bias of the Judge. But there Must be reasonableness of the apprehension A bias in the mind of the party. The purity administration requires that the party to the proceedings should not have apprehension that the authority is biased and is likely to decide against the party. But we agree with the learned Judge of the High Court that it is equally true that it is not every suspicion felt by a party which must lead to the conclusion that the authority hearing the proceedings is biased. The apprehension must be judged from a healthy, reasonable and average point of view and not on mere apprehension of any whimsical person. While on this point we reiterate that learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in his submissions made a strong plea that his client was hurt and had apprehension because the arbitrator being the appointee of his client was not acceding to the request of his client which. the petitioner considered to be reasonable. We have heard this submission with certain amount of discomfiture because it cannot be and we hope it should never be in a judicial or a quasi-judicial proceeding a party who is a party to the appointment could seek the removal of an appointed authority or arbitrator on the ground that appointee being his nominee had not acceded to his prayer about the conduct of the proceeding. It will be a sad day in the administration of justice if such be the state of law. Fortunately, it is not so. Vague suspicions of whimsical, capricious and unreasonable people are not our standard to regulate our vision. It is the reasonableness and the apprehension of an average honest man that must be taken note of. In the aforesaid light, if the alleged grounds of apprehension of bias are examined, we find no substance in them. It may be mentioned that the arbitrator was appointed by the Chief Engineer of the petitioner, who is in the service of the petitioner.

Applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in paragraph 6 of the above referred to judgment to the facts of the present case, at the cost of repetition be it stated that the apprehension expressed by the petitioners is not well-founded as it is a apprehension of fanciful bisa.

It is settled principle of law that the litigant cannot dictate the Court of law, either it may be a judicial authority, quasi-judicial authority, Tribunal, adjudicator or arbitrator or the authority appointed under the special statute. While adjudicating the claim, many time it does happen that when the litigant or his lawyer argue before the court, raise several contentions which are totally not germane to the issue raised in the proceedings, court has to control the litigants or his advocate. That fact itself cannot lead to conclusion that the court would be biased towards the litigants or his advocate. Similar is the situation in the case on hand. At the time of hearing before the competent authority, the concerned advocate of the petitioners has raised the point that how the competent authority can function while sitting in the office of RGTIL. Thereupon the competent authority has called for the notification itself and officer of RGTIL has sought for time, which was granted. At that time there might have been some hot discussions between the concerned advocate of the petitioners and the competent authority. That fact itself cannot lead to the conclusion that the competent authority would be biased towards the petitioners while adjudicating the claim of compensation put forward by the petitioner against the RGTIL.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, according to us, the petitioner is unable to persuade us or demonstrate before us that the competent authority is biased or would be bias while adjudicating the claim put by the petitioners against the company for determination of compensation on account of loss sustained by him while laying down the pipeline from his land.

Seen in the above context, all the petitions lack merit, deserves to be rejected at the admission stage.

Now this takes us to examine the alternative submission made by Mr. S.N.Soparkar, learned senior counsel that the interim directions issued vide order dated 2.5.2007 rendered in Special Civil Application No. 9015 of 2007 to the effect that the petitioner shall not be entitled to interest on the amount of compensation which may be awarded from the date of filing of the petition, which is April 2, 2007, till the disposal of the petition, may be vacated as it is interim order and the court deciding the petition finally, can come to its own conclusion and the petitionres have demonstrated that the petition is not filed with a view to delay tactics. He, therefore, urged that the direction may be issued to the competent authority to award interest in favour of the claimant as per the provisions contained under the Petroleum Act.

We have given careful consideration to this submission. According to us there is no manner of doubt that the interim order holds the field till the decision or final adjudication in the main matter and thereafter it would be merged in the order passed in the main petition. A perusal of the statutory provisions contained under the Act, there is a provision to award additional compensation calculated @10% of the market value of the land on the date of notification under sub-Section (1) of Section 3, in terms of Section (4) of Section 10 of the Petroleum Act, which is as under:

10 (1)...

(2)...

(3)...

(4) Where the right of user of any land has vested in the central Government, the State Government or 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 owner and to any other person whose right of 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.

In view of the aforementioned statutory provisions contained under the Petroleum Act, according to us, the petitioners are entitled to get additional compensation calculated @10% of the market value of the land on the date of notification under sub-Section (1) of Section 3, in terms of Section (4) of Section 10 of the Petroleum Act.

Besides this, there is also provision to pay interest in terms of Section 11 (2) of the Petroleum Act, which is as under:

11 (1)...

(2) If the amount of compensation is not deposited within the time prescribed under sub-section (1), the Central Government, the State Government or the 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.

By virtue of this provision, competent authority has to award interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date on which the compensation has to be deposited till the date of the actual deposit.

In view of the statutory provisions contained under the Petroleum Act, we are of the opinion that interim directions issued vide order dated 2.5.2007 directing that the petitioners shall not be entitled to interest on the amount of compensation, which may be awarded from the date of filing of the petition, which is April 2, 2007, till the disposal of the petition, deserves to be vacated and it has to be held that the petitioners are entitled to get additional compensation in view of the provisions contained u/s 10(4) and also interest as per the provisions contained u/s 11 (2) of the Petroleum Act.

For the foregoing reasons, all the petitions fail and accordingly they are rejected at the admission stage with no order as to costs. Interim direction dated 2.5.2007, rendered in Special Civil Application No. 9015 of 2007 to the effect that the Petitioners shall not be entitled to interest on the amount of compensation, which may be awarded from the date of filing of the petition, which is April 2, 2007, till the disposal of the petition, shall stand vacated. It is held that the petitioners are entitled to get additional compensation on the total compensation determined by the competent authority u/s 10 (4) of the Petroleum Act and also interest in terms of Section 11 (2) of the Petroleum Act, and accordingly the competent authority is directed to determine the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners.

Notice issued in each petition stands discharged.