Back
2005 Supreme(AP) 418
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : L.NARSIMHA REDDY, T.MEENA KUMARI
Peela Pothi Naidu - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 04-26-05
Headnote:Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 - Sections 3(1), 7(1) - Commission of Inquiry - Withdrawal and Removal of once Notification under section 7 issued by Government withdrawing commission, it has no power to revive the commission.
Held : Formation of an opinion is a sine qua non for exercising any statutory power. Mere existence of power, is never recognized as a justification by itself. There is no denial of the fact that the opinion, as such, must exist. One important principle, which needs to be kept in mind, in this regard, is that the opinion of the Government, irrespective of the form, must be evident from the order itself. It cannot be supplemented through pleadings or the record.
Both, while appointing the Commission and notifying its cessation, the opinion of the government was reflected in the respective orders, the opinion of the Government, in the former case, for appointing the Commission, was recognized by the Supreme Court; and in the latter, it was recognized by this Court. In the instant case, the impugned G. O. , by itself, does not refer to any circumstances, that weighed with the Government, to revive the Commission. In the counter affidavit filed in W. P. No. 21111 of 2001, the Government stated the circumstances, underwhich it had decided to discontinue the Commission. Copious reference was made to the civil cases; criminal cases, and disciplinary proceedings, together with their stages, touching on the subject matter, which was referred to, the Commission, for enquiry.
A Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.21111 of 2001 has undertaken extensive discussion on the relevant legal principles and merits of the matter and upheld the G.Os. issued under Section 7 of the Act. The state is under obligation to furnish a reason, which is strong enough, to outweigh those, that appealed to this Court in upholding the Gos. Issued under Section 7. Neither such reasons are furnished, not there is any reference, to the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.21111 of 2001, in the impugned order. The only reason sought to be furnished during the course of hearing is that, item No.4 of the reference is so wide, that its relevance and importance cannot be confined to any particular case or proceedings, and that the Government intends to obtain a report of the Commission on such issue of general importance. It has to be noted that this item of reference was very much there, when the Government has decided to issue notification under Section 7, and it is not a development, which has taken place subsequent to the order of this Court in the said writ petition. A Commission cannot be dealt with like a bladder to be inflated or deflated, at the discretion of the Government of the day.
( 1 ) SINCE the issues of facts and law involved in all these writ petitions are inter-related and arise out of a single Government Order, they are clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
( 2 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 14110 of 2004 and W. P. No. 18791 of 2004 is Sri Peela pothi Naidu, Advocate whereas the petitioners in W. P. No. 1364 of 2005 are telugu Desam Party rep. by its Secretary sri Kadiam Srihari and Sri Ashok Gajapathi raju, former, Minister. In W. P. No. 1364 of 2005, a Freelance Journalist-Mr. ABK Prasad and several other Members of Legislative assembly got impleaded as respondents 4 to 14.
( 3 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 14110 of 2004 sought the relief of issuance of Quo warranto against the third respondent i. e. , sri Justice B. K. Somasekhara (Retd) and consequently to set aside the G. O. Ms. No. 58 iandcad (P. W. GV. 3) Department dated 22-6-2004 published in A. P. Gazette Part I extraordinary No. 243-C dated 22-6-2004 issued by the first respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and the provisions under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (for short the Act ) and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, whereas the relief sought for in WP No. 18791 of 2004 is to issue a Writ of Prohibition against the third respondent i. e. , Sri Justice b. K. Somasekhara from functioning as commission of Inquiry as per G. O. Ms. No. 58 iandcad (PW-GV3) Department dated 22-6-2004. In WP No. 1364 of 2005, the petitioner prayed this Court to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the said G. O. Ms. No. 58 dated 22-6-2004 as arbitrary and illegal and also to declare the entire proceedings of the second respondent-Commission subsequent to its revival as being vitiated by bias of the third respondent and for a consequential direction to the third respondent to forbear from continuing with the enquiry by the second respondent Commission.
( 4 ) AS stated above, in all these writ petitions, the petitioners question the issuanceofg. O. Ms. No. 58 Iandcad (PW-GV3) department dated 22-6-2004 by reconstituting the Sri Justice b. K. Somasekhara Commission after withdrawing G. O. Ms. No. 544 Revenue (LA) department dated 4-8-2001 and G. O. Ms. No. 553 Revenue (LA) Department dated 8-8-2001 under which the Government have formed opinion that the continued existence of the Commission is unnecessary and thereby the Government of Andhra Pradesh directed that the Commission of Inquiry shall be deemed to have ceased to exist with effect from the first day of December, 1999. In the said GO i. e. , G. O. Ms. No. 58 dated 22-6-2004, it was directed that Commission of Inquiry is deemed to have continued with retrospective effect i. e, from 1st December, 1999 and the aforesaid Commission shall continue its inquiry from where it was stopped.
( 5 ) THE undisputed facts remain that the state Government at the first instance appointed a Commission of Inquiry vide g. O. Ms. No. 468 Revenue (LA) Department dated 2-6-1997 to conduct inquiry into certain irregularities and acts of corruption in passing awards and payment of compensation in the acquisition of lands in Yeleru Reservoir by justice B. K. Somasekhara by exercising its powers under Section 3 (1) of the commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 on the following terms: "1. to inquire into the nature and the details of the procedure financial and legal irregularities committed by any person or persons in the above said land acquisition matter, 2. to establish acts of commission and omission on the part of the official functionaries in the Government, judiciary including Law Officers and others who are alleged to be involved in the alleged irregularities, 3. to inquire into the nature and the extent of complicity on the part of any person or persons and also the role of outside influence, if any, 4. to suggest ways and means of improving the existing system and procedures including changes in the statute, to preven
