Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.

The petitioner is a former District Committee Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). He has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with the prayer that the report dated September 28, 2002, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P5 with the writ petition, submitted by the Honourable Mr. Justice V.P. Mohankumar Commission of Inquiry, be quashed. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.

2. In October 2000, a liquor tragedy had taken place in the State of Kerala. The State Government had constituted a Single Man Inquiry Commission to enquire into the liquor tragedy. The Commission was also asked to enquire and report about the possible involvement of Government Officers and public men in abetting or aiding the smuggling of illicit liquor.

3. On August 17, 2002, the petitioner was given a notice by the notice by the Commission. In this notice, it was inter alia pointed out that an amount of Rs.3,37,000/- had been paid to the petitioner. After taking notice of the facts, the Commission informed the petitioner that his reputation could be affected by the result of the enquiry. Thus, he was “given an opportunity to show cause why an inquiry be not conducted into the allegation. “The petitioner was given 14 days time to respond to the notice. A copy of this notice has been produced as Ext.P1 with the writ petition.

4. The petitioner submitted his reply on September 3, 2002. A copy has been produced as Ext. P2. Thereafter, the matter was looked into by the Commission. Finally, a report, copy of which has been produced as Ext. P5, was submitted by the Commission on November 28, 2002. The petitioner prays that this report be quashed.

5. We have heard Mr. Janardhana Kurup, learned counsel for the petitioner. He contends that there is no evidence in support of the allegation leveled against the petitioner. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, on whose statement a notice had been given to the petitioner, had admitted during cross-examination that there was no material indicating that the petitioner had received any money illegally. On this basis, the counsel contends that the finding recorded by the Commission cannot be sustained. It is further contended that the report submitted by Mr.Vijay was never put to the petitioner. Thus, no finding could have been based thereon. On these premises, the claim for quashing the impugned report has been made by the learned counsel.

6. Admittedly, the Commission had been appointed by the State Government under The Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. Under Section 8B, the Commission is required to give an opportunity of hearing to the persons who are likely to be affected by its report. Evidently, the notice in terms of the provision was duly given to the petitioner. Even permission to be represented by counsel was also given. The witnesses were cross-examined by the petitioner’s counsel. Thus, it is clear that the Commission had proceeded in conformity with the provisions of the Statute.

7. Mr.Kurup submits that there was no evidence. Is it so?

8. Admittedly, the Deputy Superintendent of Police had submitted a report in writing. This report categorically indicated that different amounts of money had been paid to the Officers as well as public men. A perusal of the notice issued to the petitioner shows that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, during the course of the inquiry, had found that approximately 50 lakhs of rupees had been paid by the liquor dealer to certain people during a short span of time. Details of the payments made to different persons including the petitioners were also given. It was categorically mentioned that besides Government Officers, “a number of individuals belonging to various political parties have also been paid various amounts and some of them were paid regularly”. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it was observed that “Sri. Sathyanesan, District Committee Secretary, CP