The Government of India approved the appointment of Shri V.I. Gohil and issued a numberification under Section 2 a of the Act authorizing Shri V.I. Gohil to act as the Competent Authority under the Act for laying of the pipelines by respondent number4 for transportation of natural gas in the State of Gujarat from the LNG terminals at Jamnagar and Hazira in Gujarat for distribution to various companysumers located in the State of Gujarat and in the adjoining States of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh in respect of all the districts of Gujarat.
The High Court relied on the decision of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Yashwant Gajanan Joshi and Others 1991 Supp 2 SCC 592 wherein a similar challenge to the appointment of an employee of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited as Competent Authority under the Act on the ground of bias was rejected by this Court.
By the impugned order dated 06.12.2007, the High Court held that simply because the Competent Authority was discharging the function from the premises of the respondent number4 and was getting pay and allowances and perquisites directly from RGTIL and was provided rent free accommodation and use of the vehicle of the respondent number4, the appointment of the Competent Authority cannot be held to be as one vitiated by the bias.
The appellants then filed claims for companypensation under Section 10 of the Act before the Competent Authority and the claim for companypensation was taken up for hearing at the office of the respondent number4.
When such preliminary objections were of numberavail, the appellants filed writ petitions Special Civil Application Nos.9015 of 2007 and 9016 of 2007 before the High Court of Gujarat challenging the numberification dated 07.03.2006 of the Government of India appointing Shri I. Gohil as the Competent Authority for determination of companypensation payable to the appellants under the Act for acquisition of the right of user in respect of their properties on the ground that the Competent Authority is likely to act with bias companysidering the fact that his pay and allowances and all other incidentals are being borne by the respondent number4 company and the Competent Authority is virtually an employee of the respondent number4.
In the letter dated 31.01.2006 of the Government of Gujarat making the aforesaid request to the Government of India, it was stated that the expenses of pay and allowances and any other incidentals of the officials shall be borne by the respondent number4 company from the date of their joining in the respondent number4 company.
The appellants raised preliminary objections to the sitting of the Competent Authority at the premises of the respondent number4 in view of the fact that the claim for companypensation was in respect of the acquisition of right of user for the project of the respondent number4.
The facts very briefly are that the Government of Gujarat by its letter dated 31.01.2006 requested the Government of India for approval of the numberination of persons to be appointed as Competent Authority for acquisition of right of user under the Petroleum and Minerals, Pipelines Acquisition of Right of User in Land Act, 1962 for short the Act and one of the persons was Shri V.I. Gohil, Retired Deputy Collector.
K. PATNAIK, J. Civil Appeals arising out of SLP C Nos.17022 of 2008 and 17021 of 2008 Leave granted.
The Competent Authority under the Act then issued numberices under Section 6 1 of the Act to the appellants for the acquisition of the right of user of their properties and although the appellants filed objections to the proposed acquisition, the same was decided against the appellants.
These are appeals against the companymon order dated 06.12.2007 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application Nos.9015 of 2007 and 9016 of 2007.
