2001 Supreme(SC) 930

2001(5) Supreme 151
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
D.P. Mohapatra & Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.
P. Janardhana Reddy -Appellant
versus
State of A.P. & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4138 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14350 of 1999)
With
Civil Appeal No. 4139 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16677 of 1999)
Decided on 13-7-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Harish N. Salve, Solicitor General, Ramesh Ranganathan, Add. Advocate General Kapil Sibal, R. Sundaravardhan and Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocates, D. Rama Krishna Reddy, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, Mrs. Asha Gopalan Nair, Guntur Prabhakar and Mrs. Anjani Alyagari, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court was not right in the facts and circumstances of the case to quash the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry under Section 3 of Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 solely on the ground that the State Government has not formed an opinion regarding necessity of setting up the Commission under the Act.

Headnote:Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952-Section 3-Notification under by A.P. State Government to appoint Commission to inquire irregularities committed in the payment of compensation relating to both construction of Yeleru Left Canal land and acquisition for house sites-High Court in writ petition quashing the notification on ground that there was no material to show that the Government had formed an opinion regarding necessity of setting up the Commission under the Act-Appeal against to Supreme Court-Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court was right in quashing the notifications appointing the Commission of inquiry on the sole ground that the State-Government had not formed an opinion as required under Section 3 of the Act before issuing the notification? (No)-Appeal allowed-Case law reviewed (Cross Ref. : Constitution of India-Articles 226/227 and 136).

       Held : It is the settled position that appointment of a Commission is a matter at the discretion of the appropriate Government; such an appointment is meant primarily for the purpose of information of the Government; the Commission does not adjudicate on any matter; its report has no value per se excepting giving advice and providing guidance to the Government. It is mandated in sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act that the appropriate Government may if it is of opinion that it is necessary so to do, appoint a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making an enquiry into any definite matter of public importance and performing such functions and within such time as may be specified in the notification and the commission so appointed shall make the inquiry and perform the functions accordingly. The matter stands on a different footing if a resolution in this behalf is passed by each House of the Parliament or State Legislative, as the case may be, in which case the appropriate Government shall appoint the Commission for the purpose. On a plain reading of the statutory provision it is clear that there is no prescribed form or particular manner for the appropriate Government to express its opinion that it is necessary to appoint a Commission of Inquiry. Such opinion may be expressed in any manner by which the public would get the information about such appointment. When the Chief Minister of the State expressed on the floor of the State Legislature that he has no objection for appointment of a Commission of Inquiry under the Act to inquire into the serious allegations regarding irregularities in payment of compensation for the acquired land, it is reasonable to presume that he had given necessary thought to the matter and on being satisfied that it is necessary so to do expressed his agreement for appointment of a Commission of Inquiry under the Act. The statement was made on behalf of the State Government. This was followed by the categorical statement of the Advocate General representing the State before the High Court that the requisite notification will be issued without delay and indeed such notification was issued. It is relevant to note that it was not the case of the writ petitioners that the subject matter of inquiry was not a definite matter of public importance or that no inquiry into such matter was necessary. Indeed, there is little scope for doubt that the controversy is a matter of public importance and it is but appropriate that the State Government wanted a detailed enquiry in the matter for its information and guidance. The High Court, as noted earlier, has simply held that since there is no specific order in the file which would show that the State Government had formed such opinion as required under Section 3(1) of the Act; therefore, the notification appointing the Commission of Inquiry was not in accordance with law. On the facts and circumstances of the case noted above, we are of the view that the High Court took a hyper technical view of the matter in which the State Government which is the repository of the authority had made the appointment. A serious matter of public importance which gave rise to criticisms from different quarters against public functionaries and also private persons is a matter which calls for proper inquiry and if the State Government in its wisdom thought it proper to entrust the inquiry to a sitting or retired Judge of the High Court, no exception can be taken to such action. It is desirable that activities of public functionaries should be above board and if allegations and criticisms are received in that regard the matter should be promptly inquired into and appropriate follow-up action taken. The need is all the more important in matters relating to public money. The High Court, in our considered view, omitted to look to the main purpose of appointment of Commission of Inquiry under the Act and interfered with the notification issued by the State Government without firm basis in law and without justification on facts. (Para 9)

       After referring to case law held : Testing the case on hand on the touchstone of the principles laid down in the aforementioned decided cases, we find that the High Court has not held that there was no material of an objective or real nature to form the basis for the subjective satisfaction of the State Government that the matter is one of definite public importance into which an enquiry is necessary to be made. In the present case the exercise regarding payment of compensation were mostly based on records. In such a matter there is little scope to contend that the criticisms are merely on some vague allegations or hearsay evidence or the intention is to make a fishing inquiry. On a careful consideration of the entire matter, we are not persuaded to accept the view taken in the judgment of the High Court quashing the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry under the Act. Accordingly the appeals are allowed and the judgment under challenge is set aside. There will however be no order for costs. (Paras 14 and 15)