The petitioner seeks to quash certain reports of the Wakf Enquiry Commission on the ground that there are adverse remarks, findings and recommendations against the petitioner which were totally unwarranted. The main challenge is with reference to report Nos.4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 19, 20 and 23 and also the unnumbered report at Ext.P10.

2. According to the petitioner, when an enquiry report is prepared in terms with the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952, before passing such adverse remarks and findings against a particular person, necessarily notice has to be issued to the said person and only after calling for such remarks that any such adverse report could be finalised. In other words, the main contention urged by the petitioner is that various imputations and adverse remarks were made against him without issuing notice which were unwarranted and uncalled for as the terms of reference never called for making such remarks.

3. Facts involved in the case would disclose that the petitioner is the Chief Executive Officer (for short 'CEO') of Kerala State Wakf Board. Ext.Pl is the appointment order. Petitioner joined service on 20/6/2001. According to the petitioner there had been several attempts to tarnish the reputation of the petitioner and to bring him under the cloud of suspicion and for that purpose the 1st respondent as per G.O.P.NO.381/2008/RD dated 6/11/2008 appointed the 2nd respondent as Commission of Enquiry under the Chairman ship of Retired District Judge under Section 3 of the Commission Of inquiry Act, 1952. The said Government order at Ext.P7 contains the terms of reference also. It is said that the Commission had submitted 24 reports to the Government of which 22 reports were submitted jointly by the Chairman and the Member Secretary. 23rd report was submitted by the Chairman of the commission and one unnumbered report was submitted separately by the Member Secretary.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that serious imputations and findings were rendered by the commission in relation to the conduct of the petitioner and opinions were formed which has prejudicially affected the reputation and character of the petitioner.

5. The reports have been accepted by the Government as per G.O (M.S).No.l66/10/RD Dated 11/5/2010. In Ext.P9 it is indicated as under:

"(1) Wakf enquiry Commission report and the notes prepared based on the report are approved

(2) The report shall be published and further action shall be initiated.

(3) Action shall be taken on the recommendation of the Commission as per Section 97 of the Central Wakf Act and Section 63 of the Wakf rules,"

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act and contends that when the Commission considers the conduct or action of any person, it has to issue notice to the said person, for giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard and also has to give sufficient opportunity to produce evidence. Such an opportunity was not given to the petitioner and therefore the adverse remarks are to be dispensed. Reliance is also placed on State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani (2003 (8) SCC 36).

7. Counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent inter alia supporting the stand taken by the Commission. It is stated that the Commission had narrated the lapses on the part of the petitioner which cannot be challenged in a writ petition especially when the report had been approved by the Government. If any proceedings had been taken against the petitioner in the light of the report it is possible for him to challenge the said proceedings. It is also stated that sufficient notice has been given by the Commission as without information from the Chief Executive Officer the Commission cannot function. It is stated that at the relevant time when the Commission was conducting the enquiry, the petitioner was the CEO. He was given sufficient opportunity to submit remarks and it is only after the explanation and remarks submitted by the petit