Important Point-It is not mandatory for Chief Minister or Governor to place report of Inquiry Commission before House of Legislative Assembly.

V.M. Sahai, J.

1. By way of this Writ Petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:

"(a) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to declare and hold that second respondent has with the oblique motive, deliberately violated the constitutional provisions and violated the oath of office and has further violated the provisions laid down under Arts. 166 and 167 and further be pleased to declare that second respondent never rendered her constitutional duties and the unconstitutional activities of her clearly proved her mala fides;

(b) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Government of Gujarat to lay before the Legislative Assembly of Gujarat the report of Justice M.B. Shah Commission of Inquiry along with the report on the action taken thereon and to publish the said report and action taken thereon as early as possible;

(c) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Government of Gujarat to supply copy of the report to the petitioners and to publish the said report for information of the people;

(d) Such other and further order/s which may be deemed just and necessary in the facts of the case may be passed."

According to the petitioners, the Legal Department of Government of Gujarat issued Notification dated 16-8-2011 appointing a Commission of Inquiry consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah (Retd.), former Judge of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as Chairman of the Committee under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. The Commission was appointed to inquire into and report in respect of 17 allegations of corruption and malpractice in respect of various transactions alleged to have been committed by the Government of Gujarat. The petitioners state that the Commission has submitted its report to the State Government, but the same has neither been sent to the Governor nor tabled before the Legislative Assembly.

2. Petitioner No. 1 is the Ex-Chief Minister of Gujarat State and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are Senior Citizen of the State of Gujarat, who have also appeared before the Justice M.B. Shah (Retired) Commission.

3. We have heard Ms. Amee Yajnik, learned Advocate for the petitioners. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the report of the Inquiry Commission has not been tabled before the Legislative Assembly. Attention of this Court is drawn to Arts. 167 of the Constitution of India, which reads as under:

"Art. 167 - It shall be the duty of the Chief Minister of each State:-

(a) To communicate to the Governor of the State all decisions of the Council of Ministers relating to the administration of the affairs of the State and proposals for legislation;

(b) To furnish such information relating to the administration of the affairs of the State and proposals for legislation as the Governor may call for;

(c) If the Governor so requires, to submit for the consideration of the Council of Ministers any matter on which a decision has been taken by a Minister but which has not been considered by the Council."

4. Ms. Yajnik has also drawn our attention to Sec. 3(4) of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, which reads as under:

"Sec. 3(4) - The appropriate Government shall cause to be laid before (each House of Parliament or, as the case may be, me Legislature of the State) the report, if any, of the Commission on the inquiry made by the Commission under sub-sec. (1) together with a memorandum of the action taken thereon, within a period of six months of the submission of the report by the Commission to the appropriate Government."

5. Ms. Yajnik has vehemently argued that as contemplated under Art. 167 of the Constitution of India, it is the constitutional duty of the Chief Minister to communicate to the Governor, all decisions of the Council of Ministers relating to administration and affairs of the State and proposals for legislations. In the present case, by not communi