Dixit, C.J.

1. The petitioners in this case seek a direction restraining Shri R.J, Bhave, one of the Judges of this Court, appointed as a Commission under section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, (hereinafter called the Act), for the purpose to be stated presently, from commencing the enquiry till the conclusion of criminal cases instituted against them in respect of offences under sections 148, 149, 120-B and 302 I.P.C.

2. It appears from annexure-1 to the petition that for some time past feelings between the Hindus and Satanamis of villages Guruaindabri and Baigakapa were strained. On account of these feelings there was a clash between the two communities on 13th January 1968 at village Guruaindabri and on 20th January 1968 at the other village Baigakapa. It is alleged that in these disturbances there was looting, arson and violence to the several persons. After these incidents, a notification was issued by the Government under section 3 of the Act appointing Shri Bhave as a one-man Commission for the following purposes, namely:-

(i) to enquire into and report on the circumstances leading to the happenings at village Guruaindabri on 19th January 1968 and Baigakapa on 20th January 1968 with special reference to the past history of the area and similar incidents within the last 15 years;

(ii) to enquire into and report the causes of the strained relations between the different sections of society in that area;

(iii) to examine and report whether the district administration and the police officials discharged their duties in relation to the incidents properly and effectively; and (iv) to suggest remedial measures.

On 19th March 1968 a notice was issued by the Commission inviting 'all individuals and associations interested in the enquiry' to file statements relevant to the terms of the reference by 25th April 1968. The notice also stated that a preliminary sitting of the Commission would be held at Bilaspur on 29th April 1968.

3. The petitioners say that they and some other hundred persons have been arrested in connection with offences under sections 148, 149, 120-8 and 302 I.P.C. alleged to have been committed during the course of disturbances that took place at the aforesaid two villages on 19th and 20th January 1968 and a challan for their prosecution in respect of the said offences was to be filed on 24th April 1968 in the Court of the First Class Magistrate, Bilaspur. Their main grievance is that if the Commission commences the enquiry entrusted to it, it will seriously prejudice their trial for the offences charged against them, create public opinion against them, influence the witnesses who may give evidence at the trial, and they may also be compelled to make statements before the Commission which may be used against them in the criminal cases. It is for these reasons that the petitioners pray that the Commission be restrained from commencing the enquiry.

4. In our judgment, the apprehension felt by the petitioners is unfounded and based on a total misconception of the purpose and scope of the enquiry entrusted to the Commission. Section 3 of the Act empowers toe appropriate Government in certain eventualities to appoint a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making an enquiry into any definite matter of public importance. As to what is a 'definite matter of public importance' bas been elucidated by the Supreme Court in Ram Krishna Dalmia Vs. Justice Tendolker AIR 1958 SC 538 at p. 544. The Supreme Court said-

"Wide spread floods, famine and pestilence may quite easily he a definite matter of public importance urgently calling for an inquiry so as to enable the Government to take appropriate steps to prevent their recurrence in future. The conduct of villagers in cutting the 'Bunds' for taking water to their fields during the dry season may cause floods during the rainy Season and we can see no reason why such unsocial conduct of villagers of certain villages thus causing floods should not be regarded as a de