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

1973 Supreme(Del) 10

High Court Of Delhi
P.R.NAYAK - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 464 of 1972
Decided On : 01/17/1973

Advocates Appeared:
A.K.VERMA, B.R.RAKHIANI, Bishambar Lal Khanna, F.S.NARIMAN, G.B.Rai, GOBIND MUKHOTY, J.B.DADACHAN, J.N.AGARWAL, JAGDISH SVARUP, P.N.Sethi, PRAMOD SVARUP, RAJ PANJWANI, S.C.PATEL, S.S.Chadha, SANTOSH CHATTERJI

A Commission of Inquiry can be constituted dehors the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, and upon the issue of a notification under Section 11 of the Act, this authority is deemed to be a Commission appointed under Section 3 for the purposes of the Act.

Headnote:

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ACT - APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSION - NOTIFICATION - RESOLUTION - SECTION 3 - SECTION 11 - VALIDITY OF APPOINTMENT - COMMISSION DEEMED TO BE APPOINTED UNDER SECTION 3 - EXECUTIVE POWER OF GOVERNMENT - FICTION OF LAW.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the constitution and continuance of a one-man Commission appointed to inquire into alleged irregularities in the grant of contracts and construction of pipelines. The Commission was initially appointed by a resolution of the Government, and later, a notification was issued under Section 11 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, applying the provisions of the Act to the Commission.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the initial resolution appointing the Commission was not a valid appointment under Section 3 of the Act, as it did not express the Government's opinion that it was necessary to appoint a Commission. However, the subsequent notification issued under Section 11 of the Act cured this defect, and the Commission was deemed to be a Commission appointed under Section 3 for the purposes of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the Commission was duly appointed under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. 2. Whether the notification issued under Section 11 of the Act could validate the initial resolution appointing the Commission.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 3 of the Act requires the appropriate Government to form an opinion that it is necessary to appoint a Commission of Inquiry and to publish this opinion in the official gazette. 2. The initial resolution appointing the Commission did not express the Government's opinion that it was necessary to appoint a Commission and was, therefore, not a valid appointment under Section 3 of the Act. 3. Section 11 of the Act allows the Government to apply the provisions of the Act to an authority, other than a Commission appointed under Section 3, set up under a resolution or order of the Government. 4. The notification issued under Section 11 of the Act applied the provisions of the Act to the Commission, which was initially appointed by the resolution, and the Commission was deemed to be a Commission appointed under Section 3 for the purposes of the Act.

Final Decision: The Court held that the Commission was validly appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, by virtue of the notification issued under Section 11 of the Act, and dismissed the petition.

S. N. Andley, J.

( 1 ) THE constitution and continuance of the one-man Commission presided over by Justice J. N. Takru, hereinafter REFERRED TO to as "the Commission", has been challenged by the petitioner P. R. Nayak on various grounds. Respondent No. 1 to this petition is the Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Chemicals and respondent No. 2 is Justice J. N. Takru himself. The petitioner, a Government servant, was, at the relevant time, the Managing Director of the Indian Refineries Limited, a public sector undertaking, now merged with the Indian Oil Corporation, another public sector undertaking.

( 2 ) SHORTLY stated, the Commission was appointed to inquire into alleged irregularities in the grant of contracts and in the actual construction of the Gauhati-Siliguri and Haldia-Barauni-Kanpur Pipelines and in the payments made to two contractors, namely, (1) Bechtels as Design Engineers and over-all Supervisors in Gauhati-Siliguri Pipeline and as Design Monitors and Project Managers in Haldia-Barauni-Kanpur Pipeline and (2) Snam-Saipem for contructing Gauhati- Siliguri and Haldia-Barauni-Kanpur Pipelines.

( 3 ) IT is not disputed that the appointment of the Commission was preceded by the report dated April 29, 1970, of the Parliamentary Committee on Public Undertakings which had, infer aha, recommended to Government,-

"to take immediate steps to bring to book the guilty officers on the basis of the evidence that is already available. The least that would be done is to proceed departmentally without delay against the officers concerned under the relevant Government Servants Conduct Rules. "

( 4 ) THE Commission was appointed by a resolution dated August 22, 1970 (published in the Gazette of India, Part I, Section 1) of the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Chemicals and Mines and Metals (Department of Petroleum ). The resolution states that the Government of India "have decided to set up a one-man Commission under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 headed by Shri (Justice) J. N. Takru, retired Judge of Allahabad High Court. " The Commission was required to submit its report within a period of six months. It was to devise its own procedures and to call for such information and take such evidence as it may consider necessary. The terms of reference were as follows:-

" (A) (i) to determine whether any payment to Bechtels (as Design Engineers and overall Supervisors in Gauhati-Siligurr Pipeline and as Design Monitors and Project Managers in Haldia-Barauni-Kanpur Pipeline) was made in excess of the amount sanctioned by Government and if so, was such payment justified? (ii) was the induction of Bechtels into the aforesaid projects malct fidea-nd were they shown any undue favour by officials of the IRL/government. (b) to determine whether there have been omissions in regard to scrutinising, editing, compiling and maintaining contractual documents relating to the investigations, designs, construction and supervison of the Haldia-Barauni-Kanpur pipeline and whether the negotiations leading to the contracts were carried out diligently and whether adequate records of the negotiations were kept. (c) whether the then Managing Director, IRL, acted on his own by-passing the Board of Directors in his dealings with Snam and Bechtels in vital matters concerning the capacity of the Haldia-Barauni-Kanpur Pipeline, and whether the amendment of the contract adversely affected the capacity of the pipeline. and whether negligence or improper motive is substantiated against the Managing Director, IRL, for not bringing these to the notice of the Board/government, and, in particular. whether the General Manager and Managing Director were perfunctory and casual in dealing with an important communication of the 26th September, 1963 from Bechtels to IRL mentioning the design capacity of Haldia-Barauni-Pipeline as 1. 9 million Tonnes per year. (d) to investigate the circumstances in which the












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