9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of Ext.P6 Notification 2. Allegations of Mala Fide Intent 3. Discrimination and Violation of Article 14 4. Necessity and Justification for a New Inquiry 5. Validity of Previous Inquiry Reports Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Ext.P6 Notification: The petitioner challenged Ext.P6, a notification issued under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, arguing that it was unconstitutional, mala fide, illegal, and void. The court examined whether the government had the jurisdiction to issue Ext.P6 and concluded that the government indeed had the jurisdiction to promulgate the notification. The purpose of an inquiry under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act is to gather facts or information. The court noted that the inquiry ordered under Ext.P6 was to investigate "definite matters of public importance," thus making the notification valid and legal. 2. Allegations of Mala Fide Intent: The petitioner argued that Ext.P6 was issued due to personal animosity and political rivalry, particularly from the current Chief Minister and his party. The court evaluated whether Ext.P6 was passed "bona fide" and "in accordance with law." It was determined that the government had applied its mind and acted reasonably and bona fide. The court referenced several legal precedents to support the notion that the exercise of discretionary powers must be reasonable and in good faith. The court found that the government had acted within its powers and that Ext.P6 was not issued with mala fide intent. 3. Discrimination and Violation of Article 14: The petitioner claimed discrimination, arguing that a similar inquiry was not initiated against another minister, Sri P.S. Sreenivasan, despite allegations against him. The court rejected this plea, stating that there were insufficient details regarding the circumstances of the inquiry against Sri P.S. Sreenivasan. Without these details, the court could not evaluate the claim of discrimination or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus, the court repelled the plea of discrimination. 4. Necessity and Justification for a New Inquiry: The petitioner contended that previous inquiries by Justice Janaki Amma and Justice P. Narayana Pillai had already investigated the allegations, and their reports (Exts.P2 and P3) were accepted by the government. The court noted that the earlier inquiries were conducted under an executive order and not under the Commissions of Inquiry Act. The government found the earlier reports to be incomplete and unsatisfactory, necessitating a fresh inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act. The court agreed that the government had the right to gather more information if it deemed the previous inquiries inadequate. 5. Validity of Previous Inquiry Reports: The court examined the validity of the previous inquiry reports (Exts.P2 and P3). The government argued that the reports were ex parte, summary, and lacked credibility. The court found that the government had legitimate reasons to find the earlier reports unsatisfactory and to order a new inquiry. However, the court noted that charges 4 and 14 in Ext.P6 were not adequately justified. The government acknowledged this and agreed to delete these charges from the inquiry. Conclusion: The court upheld Ext.P6 as valid, legal, and reasonable for all charges except charges 4 and 14. The original petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs. The court concluded that the government had acted within its jurisdiction and reasonably in issuing Ext.P6, except for the inclusion of charges 4 and 14, which were to be deleted.
|
