KONANDUR LINGAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions have come up before us on a reference made bv a learned Single Judge. The petitioners in WP.4927/77. K.Lingappa and S.Gundaiah Setty, are members of the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council of the State of Kar respectively. The petitioners in WP.5489 of 1977, V.R.Krishna Iyer and Parvathagouda Basangouda Patil. are members of the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly of the State of Karnataka respectively. In the first writ petition the only respondents are, the State of Karnataka and Justice Mir Iqbal Hussain Commission of Enquiry, whereas in the second writ petition in addition to the aforesaid respondents, the third respondent impleaded is, D.Devarai Urs. Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka. The reliefs claimed in both these writ petitions are substantially the same. As common questions of law and facts arose for consideration, these writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order

(2.) In these two writ petitions what is challenged is the Notification issued on the 18th of May, 1977, under S.3 of the Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), appointing Justice Mir Iqbal Hussain, retired Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, to be a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making an inquiry into the allegations specified in the Notification and to submit a report thereon to the State Govt within a period of four months from the date of the Notification. In the first writ petition the prayer is for issue of a writ in the nature of quo warran to and/or other appropriate writ or order as the case may be, declaring that the appointment of the second respondent as Commission of Inquiry is illegal and invalid and for a consequential direction restraining the second respondent from holding any enquiry in pursuance of the impugned Notification. In the second writ petition, the prayer is for a declaration that the Notification dated 18th May, 1977, under Sec.3 of the Act is illegal and void and for a writ in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction directing respondents to forbear from taking any further action in pursuance of the said Notification.

(3.) For the sake of convenience, we shall refer, in the course of this order, to the parties and the documents filed in WPNo.4927 of 1977.