The government has the discretion to appoint a commission of inquiry, and a writ of mandamus should not be issued without evidence of a specific request and refusal by the authorities.

1. The appellant, Sri T. A. Rajendran, stated to be the editor of 'Navab', a weekly published from Trichur, filed O. P. No. 3555 of 1982 under Art.226 of the Constitution of India "to call for the entire records in connection with the inquiry into the allegation of bribery of the 4th respondent (Sri Karunakaran, Chief Minister of Kerala) which is the subject matter of the'Navab'photostat case and the records in connection with the allegations against the 5tb and 6th respondents (Sri V. N. Rajan, Director, Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, and Sri Jayaram Padikkal, Dy. Director, Vigilance Investigation, Kerala, Trivandrum respectively) in Rajan murder case and to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any appropriate writ to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents (The Home Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi, and the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, Trivandrum) for appointing a commission of inquiry as contemplated under S.3 and 11 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Central) into the allegations levelled against respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent (The Director of Vigilance Investigation, Kerala, Trivandrum) to submit the entire inquiry proceedings made by him so far'; and that writ petition having been dismissed by the learned single judge this writ Appeal has been filed by the appellant-petitioner.

2. For the reasons stated in Para.3 of the judgment under appeal the learned Single Judge took it that "the only matter in respect of which the petitioner seeks the relief is what is connected with the allegation contained in the 'Navab' dated 1-4-1972." In the averments made in the writ petition there is hardly anything to show that the petitioner bad any cause of action with respect to Rajan case. In fact, we fail to see what bearing the publication of the news item in the petitioner's weekly 'Navab' dated 1-4-1972 as to the Rajan case. Agreeing with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge, we also take it that the relief that the petitioner seeks in the writ petition is confined to the one relating to the allegations contained in the issue of 'Navab' dated 1-4-1972.

3. The learned single judge found inter alia that there was total failure on the part of the appellant-petitioner to call upon respondents 1 and 2 to order an enquiry under the Act and that the petitioner could not. at such distance of time, justifiably invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the Government to appoint a Commission to inquire into the allegation under S.3 or S.11 of the Act.

4. Sri A. X. Varghese, the counsel for the appellant, submitted that the reasons stated by the learned single judge declining to issue a writ of mandamus as prayed for are not sustainable. In support of bis contentions he cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of J. & K. v. Bakhsi Gulam Mohammad (MR. 1967 S. C. 122) and Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar (AIR. 1958 S. C. 538); and the Division Bench rulings of this Court in Eachara Varier v. Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs (1977 KLT. 335) and Eachara Varier v. Home Secretary (1977 KLT. 526).

5. Sri V. Bhaskaran Nambiar. Advocate General, submitted that if at all the appellant-petitioner was entitled to anything, that was to approach the Government in terms of G. O. MS No 386/ Home dated 20-12-1969. He also argued that the appellant-petitioner approached this Court without bearing in mind the limitations on the writ jurisdiction of this Court. He also pointed out that after the receipt of Ext. P-1 representation dated 27-6-1978 addressed to the Governor, the 3rd respondent had on 9-10-1978 written to the appellant-petitioner to produce before him evidence relied upon by him in support of his allegations; and in response to that communication the appellant-petitioner had actually met the 3rd respondent on 3-11-1978 and submitted his