The limited enforceability and authoritativeness of a Commission of Inquiry's report, emphasizing that it cannot be relied upon as a judicial inquiry and lacks finality.

D.K.Jain, J.

1. By this writ petition, filed ostensibly in public interest, eight members of Parliament (seven Lok Sabha and one Rajya Sabha), question the legality and propriety of report, dated 17.12.2004, submitted by Justice B.S. Nehra, Commission of Inquiry. They pray that the report be quashed with a direction to respondent No.l, namely, the Union of India to get the allegations of commission of offences of Hawala transactions and foreign exchange violations investigated through the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence or any other independent agency.

2. Briefly stated, the facts emanating from the writ petition and germane to the issue involved in the petition are as follows:

One Leonard A. Freeke, a resident of Amsterdam, Netherlands (hereinafter referred to as Freeke) and stated to be a close friend of the son of the Chief Minister, respondent No. 7 herein, conceived of a project by the name of Punjab Intranet Company. To discuss the proposal, a meeting was held between Freeke, respondent No.7, and the officers of the Punjab Government on 2.2.2003. A draft proposal was sent by Freekes Company, namely, Esquare Communications B.V. Ltd. (for short, Esquare) to respondent No.7 and to a former Scientific Advisor to the Punjab Government, respondent No. 10 herein. As per the proposal, Esquare was to prepare the business plan and was to implement the Project. The initial cost of setting up the Punjab Intranet Exchange, which was to allow business parks to connect to the national and international fibre-optic cable network, was estimated at Euro 2 million (Rs.11.34 Crores). Out of that, Euro one million (Rs. 5.67 crores) was to be paid by the Punjab Government to Esquare for preparing the business plan and executing the project. It is averred that at the time when the Dutch firm was getting ready to implement the project, respondent No.7, in an e-mail message to Freeke, directed him to involve one Chetan Gupta, who was introduced as an old family associate, as Indian partner in the project. He is also alleged to have written that Euro 2.5 million (Rs. 14.18 crores), instead of agreed Euro one million, would be sent to that firm by the Indian partner instead of the Punjab Government. This e-mail was published by Hindustan Times, Chandigarh Edition, on 16.10.2004. The report has been reproduced in the petition.

3. On 27.12.2005, Hindustan Times published an article under the caption "Curious transactions in the name of Punjab Intranet?", revealing that a Singapore firm had sent US$1,00,000 to a company in Mauritius, which passed on half of that sum to Esquare It is alleged that as per the newspaper report, respondent No.7 was engaged in foreign currency transactions under a scheme with the companies, which were yet to be formed.

4. The newspaper report seems to have created a political storm because of the alleged involvement of the son of the Chief Minister. As the demand for investigations by an independent agency had political overtones, the government seems to have decided to recommend appointment of a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (for short, the Act). Accordingly, vide notification dated 2.1.2004, the Governor of Punjab appointed a retired Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court as a Commission of Inquiry under Section 3 of the Act. The Governor also ordered that the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Section 5 of the Act, conferring additional powers to the Commission, with regard to summoning of any person; search and seizure of any premises and deeming the Commissions proceedings as judicial proceedings, shall apply. Sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 3 of the Act, read as follows:

"3. Appointment of Commission. - (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 each House of Parliament or, as the case may be, the Legislature of the State, by notification in the Off