9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Validity of the notification under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. 2. Allegation of mala fide exercise of power by the State Government. 3. Contempt of Court due to the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry. Detailed Analysis 1. Validity of the Notification under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 The appellants argued that the notification was invalid because it did not state the purpose of the inquiry. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the purpose was clearly mentioned in the preamble to the notification: "to facilitate rectification and prevention of recurrence of such lapses and securing the ends of justice and establishing a moral public order in future." This was deemed sufficient to justify the inquiry under Section 3 of the Act, which allows the government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry for matters of public importance. The Court cited the case of Shri Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar, where it was held that the Commission's role is to find facts and make recommendations for future legislative or administrative measures. The Court concluded that the notification was a valid exercise of statutory power. 2. Allegation of Mala Fide Exercise of Power by the State Government The appellants contended that the Commission was set up for a collateral purpose, namely to eliminate political rivals, and not in the public interest. The Court acknowledged the political rivalry but emphasized that this alone was insufficient to prove mala fide intent. The affidavits from both sides were examined, and the Court concluded that the primary objective was to maintain high standards of moral conduct in political administration. The dominant purpose test was applied, where the main purpose of the action must be lawful for it to be valid. The Court found that the dominant purpose was to promote integrity and purity in administration, not character assassination. Therefore, the notification was not a mala fide exercise of power. 3. Contempt of Court Due to the Appointment of the Commission of Inquiry The appellants argued that the appointment of the Commission constituted contempt of court because some matters related to Shri Biren Mitra were pending in civil litigation. The Court dismissed this argument, noting that the civil suits were decided purely on the basis of burden of proof without any factual inquiry. The Court referenced Shri Ram Krishan Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar, highlighting that a Commission of Inquiry does not usurp judicial functions and its scope is different from that of a court. The Court held that the Commission's inquiry would not obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice or the lawful process of the courts. Therefore, the appointment of the Commission did not amount to contempt of court. Conclusion The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the notification issued by the Government of Orissa under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. The Court found no mala fide exercise of power and dismissed the argument that the appointment of the Commission constituted contempt of court. The appeals were dismissed with costs.
|
