Back
1969 Supreme(Pat) 125
PATNA HIGH COURT
U.N.Sinha, N.L.Untwalia and S.N.P.Singh JJ.
Md.Anis Khan
Versus
T.L.V.Aiyar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 106 of 1969 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 13, 1969
The scope of inquiry under Section 3(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, is limited to "an inquiry into any definite matter of public importance", and does not extend to roving inquiries into the conduct of persons unknown as yet, regarding incidents uncertain as yet.
Headnote:
COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY ACT, 1952 - SECTION 3(1) - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE OF INQUIRY - CLAUSE (D) OF PARAGRAPH 4 OF NOTIFICATION - CONSTRUCTION - WHETHER INQUIRY CAN BE EXTENDED TO ALL PERSONS HOLDING OFFICIAL POSITIONS DURING CERTAIN PERIODS - WHETHER INQUIRY CAN BE CONDUCTED AGAINST PERSONS NOT NAMED IN PARAGRAPH 1 OF NOTIFICATION.
Fact of the Case:
A Commission of Inquiry was appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to inquire into allegations of corruption, favouritism, abuse of power, and other malpractices by certain ministers and other persons holding official positions in the State of Bihar during certain periods. The petitioner, who had filed affidavits alleging corruption and other malpractices by various persons holding official positions during the relevant periods, challenged the order of the Commission refusing to inquire into the allegations made against these persons.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Commission of Inquiry could not be directed to inquire into and report about all persons holding official positions during the relevant periods, as such an inquiry would not fall within the ambit of "an inquiry into any definite matter of public importance" as envisaged under Section 3(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. The Court further held that the Commission could only inquire into and report about the allegations made against the six persons named in paragraph 1 of the notification and, in that context, it could also inquire about other persons holding official positions who were involved in the alleged malpractices.
Issues: 1. Whether the Commission of Inquiry could be directed to inquire into and report about all persons holding official positions during the relevant periods? 2. Whether the Commission could inquire into and report about the allegations made against persons not named in paragraph 1 of the notification?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Commission of Inquiry could not be directed to inquire into and report about all persons holding official positions during the relevant periods, as such an inquiry would not fall within the ambit of "an inquiry into any definite matter of public importance" as envisaged under Section 3(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. The Court reasoned that the inquiry would involve an investigation into the conduct of persons unknown as yet, regarding incidents uncertain as yet, and that it would be difficult to hold that such a roving inquiry would come within the expression "an inquiry into any definite matter of public importance". 2. The Court held that the Commission could only inquire into and report about the allegations made against the six persons named in paragraph 1 of the notification and, in that context, it could also inquire about other persons holding official positions who were involved in the alleged malpractices. The Court reasoned that the main purpose of setting up the Commission of Inquiry was to proceed against the six persons actually named in the notification, and that it would be unreasonable to allow the Commission to add names of other persons holding official positions during the relevant periods and conduct full-fledged inquiries against them.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitioner's writ application, holding that the Commission of Inquiry could not be directed to inquire into and report about all persons holding official positions during the relevant periods, and that the Commission could only inquire into and report about the allegations made against the six persons named in paragraph 1 of the notification and, in that context, it could also inquire about other persons holding official positions who were involved in the alleged malpractices.
U.N.Sinha, J.
1. The application has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that a direction, order or writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari may issue quashing order No. 69, dated the 16th December, 1968, passed by Sri T. L. Venkatarama Aiyar, constituting a Commission of Inquiry appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Act 60 of 1952) by the State Government. The impugned order arose under the following circumstances: On the 1st October, 1967, the State Government had issued a notification appointing a commission of Inquiry for inquiring into various matters and reporting about them. The first four paragraphs of the notification are relevant and they are quoted below.
1. Whereas allegations have been made that each of the following persons namely: 1. Shri Krishna Ballabha Sahay. who held the office of Minister during the periods from the 16th April, 1946 to the 5th May, 1957, and the 29th June, 1962 to the 2nd October, 1963 (afternoon) and the office of Chief Minister during the period from 2nd October, 1963 (afternoon) to the 5th March, 1967 (afternoon).
2. Shri Mahesh Prasad Sinha, who held the office of Minister during the periods from the 29th April, 1952 to the 5th May, 1957 and the 18th March, 1962 to the 5th March, 1967 (forenoon),
3. Sri Satyendra Narain Sinha, who held the office of Minister during the period from the 18th February, 1961 to the 5th March, 1967 (forenoon).
4. Shri Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, who held the office of Minister during the period from the 2nd October, 1961 (afternoon) to the 5th March, 1967 (forenoon).
5. Shri Raghavendra Narain Singh, who held the office of Minister of State during the period from the 2nd October, 1963 (afternoon) to the 5th March, 1967 (forenoon) and
6. Shri Ambika Sharan Singh, who held the office of Deputy Minister during the period from the 6th May, 1957 to the 2nd October 1963 (afternoon) and Minister of State during the period from the 2nd October, 1963 (afternoon) to the 5th March, 1967 (forenoon)
by abusing and exploiting the official position or positions held by him as aforesaid, obtained pecuniary and other benefits for himself, either in his own name or benami, and for his family, relatives and other persons in whom he was interested, and allowed them to obtain, or connived at their obtaining, pecuniary and other benefits and thereby he, his family, relatives and other persons in whom he was interested acquired vast properties and made illegal gains;
2. And whereas allegations have also been made that each of the persons ab-ovenamed, during the tenure or tenures of their respective office or offices as aforesaid, otherwise indulged in corruption, favouritism, abuse of power and other malpractices;
3. And whereas the Governor of Bihar is of opinion that it is necessary to appoint a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making an inquiry into the definite matters of public importance herein stated;
4. Now, therefore, the Governor of Bihar, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Sec.3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (LX of 1952), is hereby pleased to appoint a commission of Inquiry to enquire into and report on the following matters, namely. (a) What was the extent of the assets and pecuniary resources owned and possessed by each of the persons abovenamed, his family, relatives and other persons in whom he was interested (i) at the beginning and (ii) at the end of the tenure of office of each of the offices held by him as foresaid;
(b) Whether, besides the persons above-named, during the tenure of office or offices held by him, obtained any assets, pecuniary resources or advantages or other benefits by abusing and exploiting his official position or positions and whether during the said period or periods his family, relatives and other persons in whom he was interested obtained, with his knowledge, consent or connivance, any assets, pecuniary resources, advantages or o
