Individuals must be given a fair opportunity to defend their reputation in inquiries where their conduct is questioned.

1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 24th December, 2011 (Annexure - P / 1) passed by the respondent No.1 - Commission of Inquiry (for short "the Commission") whereby the application of the petitioner filed on 24th December, 2011 (Annexure - P / 4) under S.8B & S.8C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (for short "the Act, 1952") was rejected.

2. The facts, in brief, leading to filing of this petition, are that a blast furnace (chimney) under construction for establishing power plant by the petitioner, collapsed causing death of several persons. The State Government exercising its power under S.3 of the Act, 1952, in public interest, appointed one man Commission under Shri Sandeep Bakshi, District & Sessions Judge, Raipur, by order dated 13th October, 2009 (Annexure - P / 2).

3. The terms of reference of the Commission was that (i) when and how the accident took place; (ii) circumstances and reasons, which led to collapse of blast furnace; (iii) who was responsible for the accident; (iv) whether the material used in the construction was up to the mark and if no, who were responsible; (v) what steps were taken for safety and security of the persons employed in the construction, if not who were responsible; and (vi) further to make recommendation to avoid such incidents in future.

4. The petitioner made an application on 24th December, 2011 stating that if in the opinion of the Commission, reputation of the petitioner is likely to be prejudicially affected, the petitioner be provided an opportunity of hearing and also an opportunity to cross - examine the witness by a legal practitioner. The petitioner further submitted in his application that the opinion submitted by the technical expert has not been shown at the time of inspection and if the opinion of the technical expert contributes to formation of opinion that the petitioner may prejudicially be affected, the petitioner be provided all the documents, including the opinion / assistance submitted by the technical expert, so that the petitioner can submit its response in effective manner.

5. The State submitted its reply to the said application on the same day i.e. 24th December, 2011 (Annexure - P / 5) stating therein that the petitioner has already availed opportunity to adduce evidence and to cross - examine the witnesses and to defend allegations levelled against the petitioner. Further, no such opinion has been formed under S.8B of the Act, 1952 permitting the petitioner to afford fresh opportunity of hearing.

6. The Commission by order dated 24th December, 2011 observed that during the enquiry of blast furnace accident the concerned parties are State Government, petitioner, respondents No.3 & 4 herein and it was possible to affect the reputation of a party. The petitioner has been afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing to put forward its case and produce evidences. The Commission has not taken any opinion of the expert except some assistance. It was further held that all the documents and records, which were referred and likely to be relied on, have been made available to the petitioner to have inspection in the office. The Commission also held that the petitioner was at liberty to have inspection again, as it was not possible to supply copies of the said documents.

7. Shri Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that if at any stage of inquiry, the Commission considers it necessary to inquire into the conduct of a