KIRAN BEDI Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioners have sought a mandamus to Delhi Administration to fill up the second vacancy (in the Committee of Inquiry) in accordance with Government of India notification No. F.10(9)/98, dated February 22, 1988. They have also sought direction to the Committee of Inquiry to change the venue of the proceedings to a place outside Delhi. In the stay application a blanket stay of further proceedings before the Committee of Inquiry (till the final disposal of the writ petition) is sought. We have heard this writ petition for five days. On 27th April 1989 when hri K.T.S. Tulsi, Senior Advocate for the petitioners concluded his arguments by way of reply to the arguments on behalf of the respondents, he wanted to move an application for amending the writ petition. Since the petition had come at a very late stage and since we had heard the counsel for the petitioners at length, we refused the permission. At the time of the arguments, counsel for the respondents pointed out to us certain deviations made by the counsel for the petitioners from the original writ petition, and the earlier orders of this Court; but considering the fact that at those stages the petitioners had appeared in person we over-ruled those objections and permitted advocate Mr. Tulsi to make all the legal submissions arising out of the facts stated in the Writ petition. Since the starting of the actual proceedings before the Committee on 30 March 1988 and till the filing of the present writ petition four more writ petitions were filed, three in the Supreme Court and one in this Court, apart from the present writ petition. It is, therefore, pertinent to know the last order of the Committee, for appreciating the prayer for/stay of proceedings.

(2.) On 14th March 1989, the Committee while rejecting the pleas of the petitioners that a Committee cannot function in the absence of a second judge and that the venue should be shifted outside Delhi reiterated the position that it could continue its proceedings by virtue of Section 8-A of the Commission of Inquiry Act. The petitioners Police Officers were then directed to be present before the Committee on 27th March 1989 for recording the statements. The writ petition was filed on 28th March 1989 and no stay was granted by this Court. The Committee heard the matter on April 3, 1989. On Mrs. Kiran Bedi's refusal to take witness stand and to take oath of affirmation, notice was directed to be issued to her to show cause as to why a complaint be not filed against her for an offence committed under Section 178 of the Indian Penal Code. The Committee thereafter adjourned the hearing from time to time as the writ petition was being beard before us.

(3.) As regards the first plea of appointment of a second judge for filling the vacancy, counsel for the petitioners argued that although the Committee was appointed in exercise of the executive power, the petitioners have a right and Delhi Administration has a duty to appont the the second judge, particularly in view of the notifications of Delhi Administration dated 23rd February 1988 and 27th February 1989. The counsel submits that in the first notification dated 23rd February 1988 is was clearly propounded by the Delhi Administration that there shall be a Committee of two judges. He submits that the names of two judges were mentioned in the same notification. The notification was issued in consultation with the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. The notification was also Gazetted. The counsel further submits that in the notification dated February 27, 1989, the second para of the notification reads :