SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1978 Supreme(Cal) 587

High Court Of Calcutta
AMIYA KUMAR MUKHERJI
ORIENT PAPER MILLS - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) - Respondent
C. R.  5120a (W)  Of  1974
Decided On : 09/26/1978

Advocates Appeared:
B.R.GUPTA, Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, NONI COOMAR CHAKRABORTI, P.L.KHAITAN, R.N.BAJORIA, R.N.DAS, Somendra Chandra Basu, SUBRATA ROYCHOWDHURY

The conditions precedent for exercising powers under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 are that the matters to be inquired into must be definite matters of public importance and the Government must have formed an opinion that it is necessary to appoint a Commission of Inquiry.

Headnote:

COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY ACT, 1952 - S. 3 - APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - DEFINITE MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE - OPINION OF THE GOVERNMENT - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a public limited company, challenged the validity of the notification dated 18-2-1970 issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, appointing a Commission of Inquiry known as "Sarkar Commission", in particular, items Nos. 2, 4, 9, 11, 12 and 13 of the Schedule 'c' to the said notification. The main grounds of challenge were that, those items are vague, indefinite and not definite matters of public importance; some of the matters had already been inquired into by the various departments of the Government, measures and actions had already been taken, as such those matters could not form the subject-matter of further inquiry by the said Commission.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the conditions precedent for exercising powers under Section 3 of the Act have not been fulfilled with respect to the impugned items referred to in Schedule 'c' to the notification inasmuch as the matters are neither "definite" nor of any "public importance".

Issues: 1. Whether the matters referred to in Schedule 'c' to the notification are definite matters of public importance? 2. Whether the opinion of the Government that the matters referred to in Schedule 'c' are definite matters of public importance is bona fide?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power conferred upon the Central Government under Section 3 of the Act is neither unfettered nor uncontrolled. 2. The Central Government can appoint a Commission of Inquiry only when there exists a definite matter of public importance into which an inquiry is necessary. 3. The courts are competent to decide whether the matters to be inquired into are definite matters of public importance.

Final Decision: The impugned items i. e. 2, 4, 9, 11, 12 and 13 to Schedule 'c' to the notification are quashed.

AMIYA KUMAR MOOKERJI, J.

( 1 ) COMMON questions of law and facts are involved in these Rules. All these Rules were heard together. My judgment in C. R. 2529 (W) of 1974 shall govern all other Rules.

( 2 ) IN these Rules the petitioners challenge the validity of the notification dated 18-2-1970 issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, appointing a Commission of Inquiry known as "sarkar Commission", in particular, items Nos. 2, 4, 9, 11, 12 and 13 of the Schedule 'c' to the said notification. The main grounds of challenge are that, those items are vague, indefinite and not definite matters of public importance; some of the matters had already been inquired into by the various departments of the Government, measures and actions had already been taken, as such those matters could not form the subject-matter of further inquiry by the said Commission.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is a public limited company under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. It is one of the largest paper producing concern in India, On May 1, 1967 the Government announced to appoint a committee to go into basic question regarding the functioning of licensing system during the last 10 years. On July 22, 1967 the Government appointed an expert committee headed by Prof. M. S. Thacker to inquire into the working of licensing system during the last 10 years with a view to ascertain whether larger industrial houses have secured undue advantage over the other applicants in the matter of issue of licenses. After resignation of Prof. Thacker, Sri Subimal Dutt became the Chairman of the committee. In July 1967 Sri Chandrasekhar, a member of Parliament, submitted a memorandum to the Prime Minister containing various allegations against Birla companies including the petitioner. Allegations were also made against the petitioner with regard to licence capacity of the paper mill units at Amlai and Brajraj-nagar and relating to the forest lease granted to Amlai Unit. On August 25, 1967 the Central Government sent abstracts of the allegations made in the said memorandum of Sri Chandrasekhar to Dutt committee and requested it to look into the said allegations since they had a bearing on industrial licensing. The Dutt committee was invested with powers under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. In September and December, 1967, two further memoranda were submitted by Sri Chandrasekhar to the Prime Minister containing allegations against Jute Mills, Paper Factories etc. in Birla group of concerns and also alleging evasion of payment of excise duty in respect of certain quality of paper manufactured by the petitioner. In February, 1969 reports of detailed investigations made by various Ministries about the allegations made to three memoranda of Sri Chandrasekhar were read before Rajya Sabha. the report found : (i) no instance of assessment of kraft paper at lower rate applicable to printing and writing paper and (ii) the other allegations relating to inflating of cost structure etc. were too vague and general. It is stated in paragraph 14 of the petition that on March 5, 1969 the then Dy. Prime Minister Sri Morarji Desai stated in Rajya Sabha that demand for excise duty had been quashed by Delhi High Court and no evidence of any organised evasion of duty or collusion with Central Excise Staff was found. On March 10, 1969 Lata Fakiruddin AH Ahmed, the former Minister of Industrial Development stated in Rajya Sabha that there was no substance on the basis of which the matter could be referred to a Commission of Inquiry. A resolution was moved in Rajya Sabha for the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry but that resolution was lost Thereafter, on April 25, 1969 a similar resolution was moved in Parliament for the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry but that was also lost In July, 1969, the Dutt Committee submitted its report recommending revision of the industrial licensing policy to make it more purposeful and effective, On July 23, 1969,















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top