Case: Trilok Sudhirbhai Pandya Vs. Union Of India

production of any document, reception of evidence on affidavits, requisitioning any public record from any court or office and issuing commission for examination of witnesses. 9. The aforesaid reference to the various provisions of the Act show that the Competent Authority has got vast powers, which affects the rights of persons interested in the land over which the pipeline is to be laid and on the reports of the Competent Authority, the Central Government and the State Government are to take decisions affecting the rights of persons interested in the land. Under the provisions of the Act, therefore, the Competent Authority does not merely determine the compensation at the first instance in accordance with the statutory rules as has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent no.4, but has to perform various other quasi-judicial functions which are normally performed by public servants whose pay, allowances and other incidentals of service are met out of the public exchequer. If instead of public servants, a person is appointed whose pay, allowances and other incidentals are not paid out of the public exchequer but directly paid by a private employer such as the respondent no.4, for whom the right of user is being acquired and by whom the compensation is payable, persons interested in the land will have reasonable grounds for assuming that such a Competent Authority, who is dependent on a private corporation for his salary, allowances, accommodation and transport allowances, will have a bias in favour of the private corporation. 10. This Court as early as in 1957 held in Manak Lal, Advocate v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi and Others [AIR 1957 SC 425 ] that every member of a Tribunal that is called upon to try issues in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings must be able to act judicially and it is of the essence of judicial decisions and judicial administration that judges should be able to act impartially, objectively and without any bias. In the aforesaid decision, this Court also held: “But where pecuniary interest is not attributed but instead a bias is suggested, it often becomes necessary to consider whether there is a reasonable ground for assuming the possibility of a bias and whether it is likely to produce in the minds of the litigant or the public at large a reasonable doubt about the fairness of the administration of justice. It would always be a question of fact to be decided in each case.” In the aforesaid decision, the observations of Viscount Cave L.C. in Frome United Breweries Co. v. Bath Jusstiees (1926 Appeal Cases 586 at p.590) that the rule that every member of a Tribunal must be able to act judicially and without bias applies not only to judicial Tribunals but also in the case of authorities which have to act as Judges of the rights of others. In aforesaid decision, this Court also held that it would always be a question of fact to be decided in each case whether there is a reasonable ground for assuming the possibility of a bias and whether it is likely to produce in the minds of the litigants or the public at large a reasonable doubt about the fairness of the administration of justice. 11. In Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Others (supra), M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. writing the judgment for the Court held in Paras 16 and 17 of the judgment: “16. It is the essence of a judgment that it is made after due observance of the judicial process; that the court or tribunal passing it observes, at least the minimal requirements of natural justice; is composed of impartial persons acting fairly and without bias and in good faith. A judgment which is the result of bias or want of impartiality is a nullity and the trial `coram non-judice. "17. As to the tests of the likelihood of bias what is relevant is the reasonableness of the apprehension in that regard in the mind of the party. The proper approach for the judge is not to look at his own mind and ask himself, however, honestly, “Am I biased?” but to look at the mind of the party before him.” 12. Thus, as per the judgment of this Court the test of likelihood of bias is whether there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the party before the Court or the Tribunal that the Court or the Tribunal will not act with fairness and without bias on account of certain objective circumstances. There is no dispute in the present case that the salary, allowances, accommodation and transport were being borne by the respondent- company directly. Thus, the Competent Authority was virtually an employee of the respondent no.4-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. In the judgment of this Court in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Others (supra) it has been held that a judgment which is the result of bias or want of impartiality is a nullity and the trial coram non-judice. Thus, the entire proceedings for determination of compensation before Shri V.I. Gohil would be a nullity. 13. In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Yashwant Gajanan Joshi and Others (supra), relied on by the High Court as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.4, this Court has clearly made a distinction between a public corporation and private employer. In para 13 of the judgment, this Court has held: “.... It would be to broad a proposition to extend the theory of bias to exclude persons only because such person draws the salary from the bodies like public corporation, State Government. It would altogether be a different case if it was a case of a private employer and his employee. We cannot equate the case of a person in private employment with that of a person in public employment. ...” 14. For the aforesaid reasons,

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]In Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Others (supra), M.N. Venkatachaliah, J. writing the judgment for the Court held in Paras 16 and 17 of the judgment:It is the essence of a judgment that it is made after due observance of the judicial process; that the court or tribunal passing it observes, at least the minimal requirements of natural justice; is composed of impartial persons acting fairly and without bias and in good faith. A judgment which is the result of bias or want of impartiality is a nullity and the trial `coram non-judice.As to the tests of the likelihood of bias what is relevant is the reasonableness of the apprehension in that regard in the mind of the party. The proper approach for the judge is not to look at his own mind and ask himself, however, honestly,but to look at the mind of the party before him.Thus, as per the judgment of this Court the test of likelihood of bias is whether there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the party before the Court or the Tribunal that the Court or the Tribunal will not act with fairness and without bias on account of certain objective circumstances. There is no dispute in the present case that the salary, allowances, accommodation and transport were being borne by the respondent- company directly. Thus, the Competent Authority was virtually an employee of the respondent no.4-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. In the judgment of this Court in Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Others (supra) it has been held that a judgment which is the result of bias or want of impartiality is a nullity and the trial coram non-judice. Thus, the entire proceedings for determination of compensation before Shri V.I. Gohil would be a nullity.