( 1 ) ON 10th March, 1990, in the Hussain Sagar Lake of Hyderabad City a tragic event occurred. The bigest statute of Lord Buddha was to be erected on that day in the centre of the lake on a high platform specially constructed and named the Rock of Gibralter. When the statute was put on a barge for bieng taken to the Rock of Gibralter, the statute sank resulting in considerable damage: some lives also were lost. In connection with that incident; the Government of Andhra Pradesh, by G. O. R"t. No. l049, General Administration Department, dt. 13-3-90 appointed Shri Justice P. A. Chowdary, a retired judge of this court, as Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. The terms of reference of the Commission, as notified in the Government Order, are as follows:-" (I) to find out circumstances leading to the accident resulting in sinking of the Buddha Statute and other equipment and also loss of life in the Hussain Sagar Lake at Hyderabad on 10th March, 1990: (II) to identify the person or persons, if any responsible for the above incidents, (III) to point out lapses on the part of any officer or authority or persons if any in connection with the above incidents; and (IV) to find out whether the transport company was appointed after due consideration of its capacity to organise transport of the statute upto Gibralter rock and whether the procedure for its appointment was followed properly". Pursuant to the notification the Commission of Inquiry commenced its proceedings; a publication was issued in newspapers on 4-5-90 by the commission inviting interested persons involved in the matter to file their affidavits. As the response was poor the Commission sent written notices on 9-5-90 to the third respondent M/s. ABC India Limited the petitioner a naval architect engaged by the third respondent in connection with designing the modular barge on which the statute was to be transported from the shore to the rock of Gibralter, and certain other persons including the Chief Engineer (Mechanical), Hyderabad: In respect of point (iv) of the terms of reference relating to the question whether the third respondent transport company was appointed after due consideration of its capacity to take up that work and whether proper procedure was followed in its appointment one Shri d. Rajender Kumar Engincer-in-Chief (Retired) was examined as C. W. I (Commission witness No. 1) on 7-9-90. Notices were not issued to other parties: only respondent No. 3 was served with a notice about the date of his evidence. The petitioner who was engaged by the third respondent for fabrication of the modular project in response to the notice issued by the commission of Inquiry on 9-5-90 entered appearance through a counsel Shri a. T. M. Rangaramanujam, who filed his vakalat on 5-9-90.

( 2 ) ON 24-9-90 the petitioner s affidavit averring the details about the work entrusted to him and other related matters which was sworn to on 20-9-90 was filed in the Commission. On 7-9-90 the recording of evidence of C. W. 1, shri Rajender Kumar, was over. A memo was filed on behalf of the petitioner by his counsel before the Commission stating "the petitioners advocate was present today at 10-30 a. m. and was told that the Honourable Judge is not sitting today and hence it is humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to hold the enquiry on next date on which date the counsel for the petitioner wants to cross-examine C. W. I Shri Rajender Kumar who was examined in the case in the interests of justice". Two similar applications were filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. On these petitions arguments were heard on 11-10-90 by the Commission and they were dismissed by a reasoned order dt. 12-10-90.

( 3 ) ALLEGING that on 11-10-90 when arguments were heard on the application filed by the petitioner to recall C. W. I for cross examination, the learned judge who presided over the Commission commented in the open Court-hall of the Commissi