Case: Hindustan Petroleum Corpn.Ltd Vs. Yashwant Gajanan Joshi

Special leave granted in SLP (Civil) No. 10124 of 1989. This appeal by special leave has been filed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (herein referred to as the Corporation) against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated April 26, 1989. The Corporation took steps under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for laying down pipelines for a project called the Bombay-Pune pipeline project. One Mrs A.R. Gadre, Special Land Officer in the office of Competent Authority was appointed as competent authority by the Government of India vide Notification No. P-32115/2/87 dated June 6, 1988. Shri Yashwant Gajanan Joshi, respondent 1 filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the Bombay High Court for removal of Mrs Gadre as competent authority on the ground that she was an employee of the Corporation and was biased against him. The Bombay High Court held that in the instant case the proprietary rights of the petitioner (Shri Yashwant Gajanan) were affected by laying down of pipes by the Corporation. The petitioner was claiming compensation and such compensation has to be determined judicially in which principle of natural justice must be followed. Principles of natural justice require a feeling in both the parties that justice will be done as between them. The High Court thus took the view that it was not proper to appoint Mrs Gadre a competent authority as she was an employee of one of the contesting parties. The High Court in these circumstances allowed the writ petition and directed the Union of Indian and appoint another competent authority. It was further directed that any suitable person may be appointed as a competent authority but he shall not be an employee of the Corporation. The High Court further directed that names of certain retired District Judge were discussed which according to the High Court were quite suitable for the purpose. However, it was left to the Union of India to do the needful expeditiously and in any case not latter than July 31, 1989. During the course of arguments we were informed that this time was got extended at the request of the Union of India. SLP (C) No. 10124 of 1989 has been filed by the Corporation while SLP (Civil) No. 16035 of 1990 was filed by the Union of India. We may mention at this stage that the special leave petition filed by the Union of India was barred by limitation by 90 days and we are not satisfied with the grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay filed by the Union of India. The special leave petition filed by the Union of India stands dismissed as barred by limitation

Court's reasoning:
14. Now we shall consider the question of the appointment of Mrs A.R. Gadre as competent authority in the present case. There is a clear averment in the affidavit in reply filed by respondent 1 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 respondent. 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 present respondent was that some interim orders of stay were also obtained in the aforesaid writ petition behind the back of the respondent. Even contempt proceedings have also been initiated by the respondent against Mrs A.R. Gadre and which are still pending before the Bombay High Court. The High Court by the impugned order had removed Mrs Gadre to function as competent authority and thereafter the Union of India accepted the above position and sought further time to comply with the directions of the High Court. We have already dismissed the special leave petition filed by the Union of India. Thus taking in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to take the view that the respondent was right in contending that Mrs A.R. Gadre may have bias while determining the amount of compensation as she herself is a litigating party in this very matter in the High Court against the respondent. An apprehension thus in the mind of the respondent is well founded and on this ground we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the Bombay High Court holding that the appointment of Mr Gadre was not valid. We however wish to make it clear that we 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.