In this group of petitions, the petitioners have questioned the validity and legality of the notice issued under Section 8-B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the SIDCUL Enquiry Commission and accordingly, the same are being decided together. For facility, the facts of Writ Petition No. 1205 (M/S) of 2010 is being taken into consideration.

2. It transpires that the State of Uttarakhand issued a notification dated 28th May, 2007 under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, appointing a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making an enquiry into any definite matter of public importance. The terms of the reference of enquiry is as under:

(1) Matters relating to the process followed in actual land allotments in the light of standards specified by the Board of Directors and the Government.

(2) Procedures adopted in respect of infrastructural development keeping in view the established standards and transparency.

(3) Examination of the procedures, agreements and their actual implementation as adopted in the activities of SIDCUL.

(4) Any other irregularities that come to the knowledge of the Commission during the enquiry.

3. Sri Arvind Verma was appointed as a single-member Commission of Inquiry, pursuant to which the Commission of Inquiry issued notices to various persons calling upon persons acquainted or in the knowledge of facts relating to the subject matter of the enquiry. Notices were issued to various individuals calling upon them to furnish to the Commission the requisite information or facts relating to the subject matter of the enquiry by way of affidavits. It transpires that the Commission collected several affidavits and documents and various persons were examined.

4. The petitioner is an IAS officer of 1993 batch of Uttar Pradesh Cadre and joined the State of Uttarakhand in the year 2001 on deputation as Additional Secretary (Planning). In and around 2004, the petitioner was appointed as Additional Secretary (Industrial Development) and Managing Director of the State Infrastructure Development Corporation of Uttarakhand Limited (SIDCUL) and remained posted as Managing Director of SIDCUL till 9th September, 2006. Subsequently, the petitioner was sent on deputation to the Government of India in the capacity of Deputy Director, Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration at Mussoorie. It transpires that upon the formation of the Commission, the petitioner was in USA on study leave. The Commission issued a notice through email on 22nd January, 2010, asking for certain information and clarification from the petitioner, in response to which the petitioner replied through email dated 7th February, 2010. The Commission thereafter issued a notice dated 11th May, 2010 to the petitioner under Section 8-B of the Act indicating therein that the Commission having considered all the documents and other material available with it had considered it necessary to enquire into the conduct of the petitioner and was also of the opinion that the reputation of the petitioner was likely to be prejudicially affected by the enquiry being conducted in terms of the reference of enquiry and therefore, the petitioner was directed that he would be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the enquiry and produce evidence in his behalf. By the notice, the Commission directed the petitioner to inspect the documents and material available with the Commission and state his case on affidavit and submit a list of witnesses and produce documents, if any, in support of the petitioner’s stand.

5. In response to the said notice, the petitioner inspected the documents in the Commission on 10th June, 2010 and thereafter, filed an application dated 11th June, 2010, asking the Commission to supply the documents. While the enquiry was going on, the petitioner thought fit to file the writ petition challenging the notice dated 11th May, 2010. The ground urged by t