P. V. Jagannath Rao vs State Of Orissa

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1968 Supreme(SC) 140

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
P. V. Jagannath Rao and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Orissa and others, Respondents.
1. The State of Bihar;
2. Biju Patnaik, Interveners.
Civil Appeals Nos. l148-l150 of 1968,
D/- 30-4-1968.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. A. K. Sen, Senior Advocate (M/s. Rajendra Mohanty, K. R. Chaudhury and K. Rajendra Choudhury, Advocates, with him), for Appellants; Mr. C. K. Dapthary Attorney-General for India and Mr. Ashok Das, Advocate-General for the State of Orissa (M/s. Santosh Chatterjee B. B. Ratho and R. N. Sachthey, Advocates, with them), for Respondents (Nos. 1,2 and 4); 217 Mr. Lal Narain Singh, Advocate -General for the State of Bihar (Mr. R. K. Garg, Advocate with him), for Intervener No. 1; Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate (M/s. M. K. Banerjee, S. K. Dholakia, Advocates, and Mr. J. B. Dadachanji, Advocate of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co. with him), for Intervener (No. 2).

Advocates:
A.K.SEN GUPTA, ASHOK DAS, B.B.RATHOD, B.SEN, C.K.DAFTARY, CO., J.B.DADACHAN, K.R.CHAUDHARY, K.RAJENDRA CHAUDHARY, LAL NARAIN SINHA, M.K.BANERJI, R.K.GARG, R.N.SACH, RAJENDRA MOHANTY, S.K.DHOLAKIA, SANTOSH CHATTERJI

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 - Section 3 (1), 4, 5 (2), (3), (4), (5), 6 and 8 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Town and Country Planning Act, 1947 - Notification of inquiry - Commission of Inquiry - Legal Validity of Notification - Whether power was exercised by State Government for a purpose alien to statute - Whether these two suits were decided rightly or wrongly – Held, It is well settled that if a statutory authority exercises its power for a purpose not authorised by law action of statutory authority is ultra vires and without jurisdiction - In other words, it is a mala fide exercise of power in eye of law, i.e., an exercise of power by a statutory authority for a purpose other than that which Legislature intended - In such a case where there is a mixture of authorised and unauthorised purpose, what should be test to be applied to determine legal validity of administrative act - Proper test to be applied in such a case is as to what is dominant purpose for which administrative power is exercised - To put it differently, if administrative authority pursues two or more purposes of which one is authorised and other unauthorised legality of administrative act should be determined by reference to dominant purpose - So also validity of government action often depends on purpose with which it is done - There, too, same principle applies - If Parliament grants a power to a government department to be used for an authorized purpose, then power is only validly exercised when it is used by department genuinely for that purpose as its dominant purpose - Applying test to present case, Court is of opinion that dominant purpose of setting up Commission of Inquiry was to promote measures for maintaining purity and integrity of administration in political life of State and not " character assassination" of Shri Biju Patnaik and Shri Biren Mitra and their group - Impugned notification of Orissa Government is legally valid - Suits were decided purely on basis of burden of proof – Court do not wish to express any view as to whether these two suits were decided rightly or wrongly, but fact remains that there was no factual enquiry into allegations - It is also not possible to accept argument that present inquiry is in relation to very matters which were subject-matter of civil suits and of first appeal - Appeals dismissed.

Judgement

RAMASWAMI, J.: These appeals were heard on April 15 and April 16, 1968 and at the close of the hearing we ordered that the appeals should be dismissed with costs and indicated that our reasons would be pronounced later. Accordingly our present judgment gives our reasons for the order which had already been passed.

2. These appeals are brought against the common judgment of the Orissa High Court dated February 22, 1968 in O.J.C. Nos. 396, 408 and 418 of 1967. By these applications the petitioners therein prayed for an appropriate direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing and setting aside notification No. 813-EC, dated October 26, 1967, issued by the Government of Orissa in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act (LX of 1952) and for other reliefs. The Schedule to the Notification gives the names of 15 persons against whom inquiry is to be made. The petitioners in the three O.J.Cs, have respectively been referred to in Items 6, 2 and 12 of the Schedule. In O. J. C. 418, Shri Harekrishna Mahtab, Shri Nabakrushna Choudhury, Shri Pabitra Mohan Pradhan, Shri Santanu Kumar Das and Shri Surendranath Patnaik were originally impleaded as opposite parties Nos. 5 to 9. Shri Biju Patnaik filed an application in this case to be impleaded as an opposite party. As the other parties had no objection he was also impleaded as opposite party No. 10. Rules were issued and except opposite parties Nos. 3 and 6 the other opposite parties showed cause, By its judgment dated February 11, 1968 the High Court dismissed the applications, holding that the notification of the State Government dated October 26, 1967 appointing the Commission of Inquiry was legal and valid. Against this judgment the petitioners in all the three O. J. Cs. have preferred the present appeals by certificate of the Orissa High Court.

3. Shri Harekrushna Mahtab was the Chief Minister of Orissa from 1947 to 1949. Shri Nabakrushna Choudhury was the Chief Minister from 1950 to 1956. In the 1957 General Election to the Orissa Legislative Assembly (hereinafter referred to as the Assembly ), out of 140 seats the Congress Party got only 56 seats. Shri Harekrushna Mahtab formed the Ministry with the support of other members but he had to resign in 1959 due to withdrawal of support by some of the groups in the Assembly. In May, 1959, he formed a coalition Ministry with the help of Ganatantra Parishad of which Shri R. N. Singh Deo was the leader. Shri Singh Deo became the Finance Minister and the Deputy Leader in the Coalition Government. During the coalition Ministry there developed acute differences of opinion in the Orissa Congress Legislative party over the conduct and programme of the coalition Ministry. The Congress Legislative party was divided into two groups, one under the leadership of Shri Harekrushna Mahtab and the other under the leadership of Shri Biju Patnaik. Shri Harekrushna Mahtab had to resign in February, 1961 as he lost the support of the majority of the Congress Legislative party. The Assembly was dissolved and there was President s rule for sometime. During the President s rule, a mid-term election was held in May 1961. The Congress Party succeeded in capturing 80 seats out of 140 under the leadership of Shri Biju Patnaik. At that time the Ganatantra Parishad had joined the Swatantra Party of India. The dissident group of members under the leadership of Shri Harekrushna Mahtab defected from the Congress Party and formed a separate political party under the name of "Jana Congress". The case of the appellants is that from 1961 till the end of 1966 this group had its secret alliance with the Swatantra Party and went on creating obstruction from within to the smooth administration by the Congress Party which had a superior numerical strength. Shri Biju Patnaik was the Chief Minister, Shri Biren Mitra was Deputy Chief Minister. There was a firm called "Orissa Agents" in the name of Mrs. Mitra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document