2019 (7) TMI 1336 - HC - Indian Laws

Commission of inquiry report - Section 8-B and 8-C of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 - It is the grievance of all the Petitioners that prejudicial findings, which tend to affect their reputation, have been rendered by the Commission against them without following these mandatory provisions - Principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - In the present case, both Union of India and the State Government make it clear, at the very outset, that they do not propose to take any action against the individuals named in the report of the Commission only on the basis of the findings of the report. Both Union and State submit that they shall in every individual case make their own assessment of facts and give opportunity of hearing to affected parties in their defence, whenever an action is proposed against such affected parties. The report of the Commission does not call for any interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The grievance of the Petitioners is primarily of a possible illegal action based exclusively on the findings and recommendations of the Report. If these grievances are addressed in terms of the statements noted above of the Union and the State, there is no particular reason why this Court should still exercise its writ jurisdiction and quash and set aside the report. Petition disposed off.

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the Commission of Inquiry Report.
2. Allegations of violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Findings of the Commission regarding illegal mining activities.
4. Adverse remarks and their impact on the Petitioners.
5. Compliance with Sections 8-B and 8-C of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952.
6. Statements from Union and State regarding actions based on the Commission’s report.
7. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the petitions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the Commission of Inquiry Report:
The petitions challenge the "Third Report dated 14 October 2013 under the Commission of Inquiry Act of Mr. Justice M.B. Shah (Retired)" and seek a writ of mandamus to prevent the Respondents from acting on the report. The report pertains to findings and recommendations on illegal mining activities, particularly concerning the Petitioners.

2. Allegations of violation of principles of natural justice:
The Petitioners allege serious violations of natural justice principles, specifically non-compliance with Sections 8-B and 8-C of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. These provisions mandate that persons likely to be prejudicially affected by the Commission’s proceedings should be heard and have the right to cross-examine and be represented by a legal practitioner. The Petitioners argue that the Commission rendered prejudicial findings without adhering to these mandatory provisions.

3. Findings of the Commission regarding illegal mining activities:
The Commission was tasked with inquiring into illegal mining, trade, and transportation of iron ore and manganese ore. The Third Report focused on:
- Quantities of ore extracted beyond permitted limits.
- Illegal exports through under-invoicing.
- Illegal transportation without requisite permits.
The Petitioners are particularly aggrieved by the adverse remarks regarding under-invoicing in their export activities.

4. Adverse remarks and their impact on the Petitioners:
The Petitioners contend that the Commission made adverse remarks without notice or opportunity to explain. For instance, the Commission compared shipping bills and dates without considering the contracts of sale, leading to erroneous conclusions about under-invoicing. The Petitioners argue that various factors, such as Fe grade, impurities, market conditions, and contract nature, affect ore prices, which the Commission overlooked.

5. Compliance with Sections 8-B and 8-C of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952:
The Petitioners argue that the Commission failed to comply with Sections 8-B and 8-C, which require hearing and representation for those likely to be prejudicially affected. The Petitioners cite judgments, including State of Bihar vs. L.K. Advani and Kiran Bedi vs. Committee of Inquiry, to support their claim that non-compliance renders the inquiry and its findings null and void.

6. Statements from Union and State regarding actions based on the Commission’s report:
Both the Union and State of Goa assured the Court that no action would be taken against individuals based solely on the Commission’s report without independent assessment and opportunity for the affected parties to defend themselves. These assurances were crucial in the Court's decision not to interfere with the report.

7. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the petitions:
The Court acknowledged its jurisdiction to entertain the petitions but emphasized that it should not exercise its writ jurisdiction to quash the report given the assurances from the Union and State. The report was deemed a fact-finding exercise without binding legal consequences, and the Court noted that the grievances of the Petitioners were addressed by the statements from the Union and State.

Conclusion:
The Court disposed of the petitions by noting and accepting the statements from the Union and State that no action would be taken based solely on the Commission’s report without independent assessment and hearing. The Court did not delve into the merits of individual assertions by the Commission or the Petitioners and emphasized that the denial of an opportunity to show cause under Sections 8-B and 8-C was the primary ground considered. No order as to costs was made.

← Previous Next →