HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED UNION OF INDIA Vs. YASHWANT GAJANAN JOSHI:YASHWANT GAJANAN JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted in S.L.P. (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 6th July, 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 6-6-1988. Shri Yashwant Gajanan Joshi, respondent No. 1 filed a petition u /Art. 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 India to 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 Judges 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 ndt later than 31 st July, 1989, During the course of arguments we were informed that this time was got extended at the request of the Union of India. S. L. P. (C) No. 10124 of 1989 has been filed by the Corporation while S.L.P. (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.

(2.) So far as the Special Leave Petition filed by the Corporation is concerned, an objection was raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 that Union of India alone was the interested party and could have challenged the impugned order of the High Court in as much as the competent authority is appointed by the Union of India. It was thus contended that the secial Leave Petition filed by the corporation is not maintainable specially when the Special Leave Petition filed by the Union of India stands dismissed by this Hon'ble Court. We find no force in this objection. In view of the fact that the High Court has removed Mrs. Gadre from acting as competent authority on the ground that she was an employee of the corporation and further gave the direction that any suitable person may be appointed as competent authority but he shall not be an employee of the corporation, there is an independent cause of grievance to the corporation and the Special Leave Petition can be filed by the corporation. The preliminary objection thus raised on behalf of the respondent No. 1 is rejected.

(3.) In order to appreciate the controversy it would be proper to consider some relevant provisions of the Act. S. 2(a) of the Act defines competent authority as under: