Dipak Misra, C.J.

1. The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the notifications dated 11.11.2005 issued by the respondent No. 1, Union of India, vide Annexures 3 and 4 to the writ petition and further to lancet the rule framed on 20.1.2006 by the respondent No. 2, the same being unconstitutional. A further prayer was made for restraining the respondent No. 2 from publishing any finding against the petitioner, the same being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Section 8B of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 (for brevity "the Act").

2. A Division Bench hearing the matter had formulated the following three questions for consideration:

(i) Is the Constitution of a fact finding inquiry commission/authority legally permissible de-hors the provisions of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952?

(ii) Should resort to Section 11 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, necessarily result in the application of Sections 8B and 8C of the said Act to the proceedings before the Inquiry Authority/Commission?

(iii) Is the right to demand copies of the documents and affidavits, the right to be represented by a legal practitioner and the right to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the Commission available to a noticee independent of Section 8B and 8C of the Act aforementioned before an Inquiry Authority/Commission established otherwise than under the provisions of the said Act?

3. As far as the question No. (i) is concerned, the Division Bench, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and placing reliance on P.R. Nayak v. UOI and Ors. ILR 1973 (1) Delhi 747 and Brahma Nand Gupta v. Delhi Administration and Ors. 41 (1990) DLT 212, concurred with the legal position stated in the said decisions and eventually did not find any merit in the contention raised by Mr. Sawhney, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. As far as the questions No. (ii) and (iii) are concerned, the Division Bench addressed to certain aspects pertaining to questions No. (ii) and (iii) and referred to the decisions in State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani and Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 361, Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendulkar AIR 1958 SC 538 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and thereafter held thus:

Need the persons whose conduct is being enquired into or those likely to be affected, wait till the commission concludes its proceedings and then challenge the findings on the ground that the same are violative of the principles of natural justice?, are matters that need to be examined and authoritatively answered. This can in our view be best done by a full bench of this Court keeping in view the importance of the questions that fall for determination.

4. Because of the aforesaid, a Full Bench has been constituted and the matter has been placed before us.

5. To appreciate the controversy from a proper perspective, it is necessary to refer to certain facts in brief. On 11.11.2005, the Government of India through the Ministry of Finance constituted an Authority named as "Justice R.S. Pathak Inquiry Commission" to go to the root of certain matters of definite public importance as set out in the terms of reference specified in the said Resolution. The Terms of Reference of the Inquiry Authority were stipulated as follows:

(1) To inquire into the sources of information, materials and documents that were available with the Independent Inquiry Committee (appointed by the Secretary General of the United Nations to investigate the administration of the UN Oil-For-Food-Programme) with reference to the Report (including the Tables) of the said Committee pertaining to contracts bearing number M/9/54 and number M/10/57 and to give its opinion on the authenticity and reliability of the said sources, materials and documents, and whether, in its opinion, the purported transactions in oil are genuine or not.

(2) To inquire into the aforesaid in