BHAGWAT DAYAL SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition came up for admission before us on September 18, 1973 when we issued notices to the respondents to show cause as to why it be not admitted. Replies to show cause notices have been filed by some of the respondents. The question which has been urged on behalf of the respondents is that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition. Because the question relates to the maintainability of the writ petition, we heard it at length and reserved judgment.

(2.) The petitioner is Mr. Bhagwat Dayal Sharma. He has disclosed his interest in filing this petition in paragraph 1. He has stated that he is a citizen of India, a tax-payer, a member of the Rajya Sabha (Council of States) representing the State of Haryana and a former Chief Minister of the State of Haryana. He, therefore, states that he is "thus vitally interested to see that powers vested in any Minister in the State are not abused for self aggrandisement and the Administration of the State runs honestly and cleanly and further that the Ministers at the Centre are not conniving with Ministers in the State to perpetrate the region of corruption, nepotism, terrorism and enrichment at the cost of the public." The respondents to the writ petition are :(1) The Union of India, (2) Shrimati Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India, (3) Mr. Uma Shankar Dikshit, Minister of Home Affairs, Government of India, (4) Mr. Ram Niwas Mirdha, Minister of State in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and (5) Mr. Bansi Lal, Chief Minister of Haryana.

(3.) On the allegation made in the petition it is prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to the respondents, quashing the impugned order dated December 19, 1972 (Annexure IX) and directing the Central Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry under section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, to inquire into the charges contained in the memoranda dated October 27, 1971 and February 24, 1972 (Annexures I and II) against Mr. Bansi Lal be issued or the respondents be directed to reconsider the matter objectively and make a fresh order. It is not necessary for the purpose of determining the question of locus stand! to go in detail into the facts alleged in the petition and it will be sufficient to state that the petitioner moved the Union of India and Central Ministers to appoint a Commission of Inquiry under the sail Act to go into various "definite matters of public importance" alleged in the petition. By letter dated December 19, 1973 (Annexure IX to the petition Mr. Ram Niwas Mirdha (respondent No. 4) informed the petitioner that the memoranda had been examined by the Government in an objective manner on the basis of the information contained in the memoranda but no case had been made out for entrusting these allegations to a Commission of Inquiry. It was further stated that a number of allegations in the two memoranda related to purchase transactions by the Haryana State Electricity Board in respect of which its Chairman had accepted full responsibility. Feeling aggrieved by this decision, the present petition has been filed for the aforesaid reliefs.