The main legal point established in the judgment is the invalidity of the orders Ext. P5 and P6 due to the order constituting the Commission of Enquiry not being in accordance with law and the dominant object of ordering enquiry against the petitioner not being to maintain the purity and integrity of administration. Additionally, the court found that a false statement was made in the counter-affidavit by the Home Secretary, leading to the issuance of a notice to show cause why a criminal complaint should not be filed against him.

1. After the general elections in March 1967, what was popularly known as the United Front Ministry took office in this State on 6-3-1967, headed by the 3rd Respondent (Sri. E. M. S. Namboodiripad) as the Chief Minister. The personnel of the Ministry was drawn from seven different political parties, viz., the Marxist-Communists (CPIM.), the Communist Party of India (Rightists or Right Communist-CPI.), the Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP.), the Muslim League, the Samyuktha Socialist Party (SSP.), the Karshaka Thozhilali Party (KTP.) and the Kerala Socialist Party (KSP.). The Chief Minister belonged to the Marxist Communist Group, and the petitioner, who was the Finance Minister, to the SSP. It is of some relevance to mention that the Speaker of the Assembly was a Member of the S.S.P., and that Sri. Willington the Health Minister, belonged to the KTP. There was a Co-ordination Committee drawn from the ranks of all the coalition parties, and of which all the Ministers were members, to evolve the greatest common measure of agreement amongst the parties, and to serve, according to the petitioner, as a balance-wheel in running the administration. On 13-2-1969 two members of the Legislative Assembly Sri. Wilson of the SSP. and Sri. K.T. George of the Congress Party (not within the fold of the United Front), made certain allegations against the petitioner on the floor of the Assembly. This eventually led to the constitution of a Commission of Enquiry under the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1952, under Ext. P6 notification, and to the petitioner vacating office as the Finance Minister, pending clearance of his conduct at the enquiry. Ext. P6 notification was published in the Gazette as ordered in Ext. P5 of the same date. A retired judge of this Court was appointed as the Commission of Enquiry to go into the allegations against the petitioner, and to submit his report on or before 30th September 1969. Two different applications were moved before the Commission by the petitioner. The one complained that the charges were vague and that Ext.P6 notification was without jurisdiction. The other was to restrain proceedings on the ground that the same would constitute a breach of privilege of the Assembly. Both these were rejected by the Commission by Ext. P9 and P10 orders. This writ petition was moved to quash Exts. P5, P6, P9 and P10 on various grounds. At the admission stage, one of us (Eradi J.), by an order dated 17-9-1969 found that there was no ground for interference with Exts. P9 and P10 orders, and overruled the petitioner's objections. (1) as to the Government's jurisdiction to issue Ext P6 notification, (2) as to the authority of the 'Special' Secretary who had purported to authenticate Exts. P5 and P6 to exercise such power under Art.166 (2) of the Constitution, and (3) as to the correctness of the action taken by the 3rd Respondent in passing Ext. P6 order, without consulting, and placing the matter before, the Council of Ministers. The orders Exts. P9 and P10, passed by the Commission of Enquiry (2nd Respondent) were hence found to be not open to challenge. On the ground of mala fides, which had been raised in the writ petition, it was felt that investigation was necessary and called for, and therefore notice was issued to Respondents 1 to 3. Against this order of the learned Judge, Writ Appeal.No. 893/1969 was filed by the petitioner and was dismissed in limine as incompetent, and not maintainable. It was held that the writ petition was still pending, and the rejection by the learned judge of some of the grounds urged in support of the really main relief to quash Ext. P6 notification, was, at best, only a finding regarding those grounds, and not a 'judgment' or 'order' within the meaning of S.5 of the Kerala High Court Act, so as to attract a right of appeal conferred by that section. The writ petition was then ordered to be placed before a Division Bench and has come before us.

2. Counsel for the petitioner contend