UNIVERSITY OF KERALA Vs. COUNCIL PRINCIPALS COLLEGES KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Orissa has filed this LA. for modification of the Order dated 27.11.2006. By the said order, this Court had directed that in no case a sitting Judge of any High Court shall continue as a Commission. It was however made clear that the order shall not operate in cases where the inquiry is at the fag end, i.e. only where the report is to be submitted.

(2.) IN support of the application, learned Counsel for the State submitted that a sitting Judge was appointed at the request of the State Government considering the "serious problem" highlighted in the letter of the Chief Minister addressed to the Chief Justice of the High Court. Though initially Chief Justice of the High Court had not acceded to the request of the State Government to appoint a sitting Judge as a Commission, purportedly considering the "seriousness of the problem" he suggested name of a sitting Judge to act as a Commission. It was, however, stated that the Commission shall hold sittings and enquiries only on Saturdays and Sundays and other High Court's holidays without interference with the normal work of the High Court. Accordingly, Justice A.S. Naidu was appointed as the Commission. It was submitted that the Commission was expected to throw light on various aspects which would help the State Government to address to the larger issues on industrialization, displacement and rights of citizens, in particular tribals. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned A.S.G. submitted that the State Government's application is clearly not acceptable, it is thoroughly misconceived. This Court in its order dated 27.11.2006 clearly indicated as to why sitting Judges should not act as Commission.

(3.) THOUGH it was strenuously urged by the learned Counsel for the applicant - State that the Commission was only permitted to work on holidays that really is of no consequence. As noted in T. Fenn Walter's case (supra) the considerations have to be of several aspects including the determinative "paramount national interest" angle. That does not appear to be a factor considered when the request was made for appointment of a sitting Judge as the commission and the reply of the Chief Justice of the High Court accepting the prayer. It could not be shown to us as to how the issues being enquired into by the Commission are of paramount national interest. Further the stand that the Commission was required to give recommendation on various other aspects like industrialization etc. is really of no consequence. It is not known as to on what basis a sitting Judge appointed as a Commission, can throw light on the broader issues like industrialization etc. In any event, the parameters of enquiry do not include these aspects. The LA. is sans merit, deserves dismissal, which we direct.