2012 Supreme(Guj) 52

2012 (2) GCD 961 (Guj) (DB)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi &
Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sonia Gokani
Amrish N. Patel, Member - Jan Sangarsh Manch
Versus
Commission of Inquiry & Anr.
Special Civil Application No. 12295 of 20091—Decided on 01/02/2012

Point in Issue :
Whether in the facts of the case order rejecting application to summon witnesses to allow cross examination by commission of enquiry is sustainable.

Headnote:Head Note :

       Commissions of Enquiry Act, 1952 — Sections 3, 4, 4(c), 5, 8, 8-B, 8-C, 10, 10(2) — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908) — Order 18 Rule 4, Order 19 Rule 1 — Setting fire of Sabarmati Express Train near Godhra Railway Station — Spread of communal violence — Setting up a fact finding commission — Multiple applications to summon several persons named including Chief Minister and other Ministers and officers and allow cross examination — Rejection by commission except in part — Challenged in LPA after rejection of SCA by Single Judge — Scope of — Commissioner has rejected the multiple applications of petitioner on ground that there was no material to summon the Chief Minister and other persons — The commission also observed that there was no such material against any of the other Ministers and officer named in applications to warrant their summoning for examination — Court also held that there is no reason to interfere with the proceedings of the commission even before the same has been concluded — Commission is only a fact finding body empowered to set its own procedure to collect evidence, record statements, examine witnesses and admit documents on record — In the facts of the case Court opened that even before completion of proceeding, same is not open to Judicial Scrutiny — Court held that looking to the scope and purpose to set up commission, it is not inclined to interfere at this stage.

       Held :

       Court does not find any reason to interfere with the proceedings of the Commission even before the same has been concluded. As already recorded, the Commission which is only a fact finding body has to collect the evidence and make its recommendations. It has no power to enforce or implement such recommendations. In its fact finding inquiry, the Commission is empowered to set its own procedure to collect evidence, record statements, examine witnesses and admit documents on record. At this stage, in facts of the case, even before completion of the proceedings of the Commission, Court does not find that its tentative conclusions are open to judicial scrutiny. Particularly, looking to the scope and purpose to set up the Commission, Court is not inclined to interfere at least at this stage. Court may notice that as recorded by the Commission in its order dated 24.9.2010, learned Counsel Shri Sinha for JSM had stated that for the present, he did not press the application Ex.6048 qua the Chief Minister and Shri. Ashok Bhatt, the then Health Ministe, for the reason that only after examining the subordinate staff and other Ministers, JSM would press the application against such persons. Court may further notice that Shri. Ashok Bhatt having since expired, issue qua him has been rendered infructuous. In so far as the Chief Minister is concerned, Counsel Shri Sinha, however, submitted before us that he would like to press this appeal qua the Chief Minister also. [Para 15]

       With respect to the question of summoning certain persons to depose before the Commission and to allow JSM to cross-examine them, Court notice that the Commission to the extent found necessary, by taking cognizance of the application of JSM, directed three persons to file their affidavits. Later on certain clarifications which were found necessary were also called for. DCP Savani was also summoned as witness. [Para 16]

       Court does not find any justification to accept such prayers. Firstly, the Act gives wide powers to the Commission to regulate its own procedure. Secondly, any cross-examination under Clause (a) of Section 8-C of the Act depends on the Commission granting such a permission which essentially is discretionary in its character. In the present case, the Commission discussed the issue at length and did not find necessary to grant any permission to the appellant. [Para 16.2]

       In the present case, the Commission has recorded its reasons and exercised its discretion and found not proper to grant such a request for cross-examination. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find that the appellant has made out any case for interference in this regard also. [Para 20]

       Law Laid Down :

       Barring areas which are already covered by the statutory provisions contained in the Act and Rules the commission has wide powers to regulate its own procedure.