Back
1973 Supreme(Gau) 30
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
P. K. GOSWAMI, C.J. AND B. N. SARMA, JJ.
Manabendra Sarkar -Appellant
Versus
State of AssNag and others -Respondent
Civil Rule No. 200 of 1973
Decided On : 21-05-1973
A. Dutta, A. Chakravorty, B.M. Mahanta and A. Laskar, Dr. J.C Medhi, Advocate General, Assam, G.K. Talukdar, Sr. Govt. Advocate Assam, G.S. Bhattacharjee, B. Das and M.S. Rahman
The government has the discretion to appoint a Commission of Inquiry under Section 3(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act if it is of the opinion that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of making an inquiry into a definite matter of public importance.
Headnote:
COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY ACT - APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSION - SECTION 3(1) - VALIDITY - DISCRIMINATION - PUBLIC IMPORTANCE - PURPOSE - FACTUAL BASIS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, representing the Hojai Citizens Association, challenged the notification appointing a Commission of Inquiry to investigate incidents at Kharupetia and Hojai, alleging that Section 3(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act was discriminatory and that the appointment was not based on sufficient materials or definite matters of public importance.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 3(1) of the Act was not discriminatory as it provided sufficient guidance for the government to exercise its discretion in appointing a Commission of Inquiry. The court also found that there were sufficient materials before the government to form an honest opinion regarding the necessity of appointing the Commission and that the matters assigned to the Commission were definite matters of public importance.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 3(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the government had sufficient materials to form an honest opinion regarding the necessity of appointing the Commission of Inquiry. 3. Whether the matters assigned to the Commission were definite matters of public importance. 4. Whether the appointment of the Commission was purposeless and amounted to a fishing inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 3(1) of the Act provided sufficient guidance for the government to exercise its discretion in appointing a Commission of Inquiry and was not discriminatory. 2. The government had sufficient materials before it to form an honest opinion regarding the necessity of appointing the Commission, as evidenced by the petitioner's own memorandum before the Commission. 3. The matters assigned to the Commission, including the circumstances surrounding the deaths of two students and the preparations made by various sections of the people, were definite matters of public importance. 4. The appointment of the Commission was not purposeless as it was required to inquire into specific matters of public importance and the government was required to take appropriate action based on the Commission's report.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry was valid and that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the notification.
GOSWAMI, C. J. :- This application under Article 226 of the Constitution, is directed against the notification, dated 20th January, 1973, whereby the Government of Assam has appointed a Commission of Inquiry consisting of Shri Justice M.C. Pathak, Judge of the Gauhati High Court, to inquire into and report by 31st May, 1973 on certain incidents at Kharupetia in Mangaldoi subdivision and at Hojai in Nowgong district.
2. The petitioner is the Secretary of the Hojai Citizens Association, which is an unregistered association, and claims to be interested in the inquiry which has been ordered under the aforesaid notification. The petitioner has entered appearance before the Commission and filed a verified memorandum on behalf of the association. The memorandum is annexed as Annexure B to the petition. The State- Government as well as other parties also filed memoranda before the Commission, which has already framed certain issues and fixed 14th, 15th and 16th May, 1973 for evidence by the State. The petitioner obtained a Rule Nisi on 10th May, 1973 and the Commission was prohibited from proceeding with the work entrusted to it under the impugned notification, pending hearing of the Rule.
3. At the outset, the learned Advocate-General raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has no locus standi to make this application, nor any legal right of his has been affected. Since the petitioner as the Secretary of the Hojai Citizens Association and as a representative of a substantial section of the people, has entered appearance before the Commission and his memorandum on behalf of the association has been accepted by the Commission, we are not prepared to accede to the submission to dismiss this application on the grounds urged by the learned Advocate-General. The preliminary objection of the learned Advocate-General is, therefore, overruled.
4. Mr. Dutta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, made the following submissions :
(1) that Section 3(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, briefly the Act, is discriminatory and should be struck down as violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution;
(2) that there are no materials before the Government to form an honest opinion with regard to the necessity of appointing a Commission and as such the order of the Government is invalid in law;
(3) that the items mentioned in the schedule to the notification from (a) to (g), and particularly (a), (b) and (c), are not matters of definite public importance and do not empower the Government under the law to appoint a Commission under Section 3 (1) of the Act;
(4) that the notification does not indicate any purpose for which the Commission of Inquiry has been constituted and as such a purposeless Commission for a fishing inquiry is not within the scope of Section 3(1) of the Act
5. With regard to the first submission, we may read Section 3 of the Act :
"3. (1) The appropriate Government may, if it is of opinion that it is necessary so to do, and shall if a resolution in this behalf is passed by the House of the People or, as the case may be, the Legislative Assembly of the State, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making an inquiry into any definite matter of public importance and performing such functions and within such time as may be specified in the notification, and the Commission so appointed shall make the inquiry and perform the functions accordingly :
X X X X
(2) X X X X
(3) X X X X
(4) The appropriate Government shall cause to be laid before the House of the People or, as the case may be, the Legislative Assembly of the State, the report, if any, of the commission on toe inquiry made by the
