S V PURUSHOTHAMAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A former Judge of the Supreme Court, referred, about three years back, in a manner characteristic of him, to the 'public inquiries jurisprudence' and the 'harvest, of Commission litigation' developing in this country. The jurisprudence indeed seems to develop and 'the commission litigation' appears to be on the increase. This writ petition deals with some face s, some unique facets, of such a litigation.

(2.) The Government of Kerala have been taking steps for enacting the Kerala Public Men (Inquiries) Bill. It is so stated in the order of the Government, G. O. Ms. No. 386 dated 20-12-1969. Pending the enactment of such a Bill the Government considered it necessary to set up a machinery to inquire into allegations of misconduct against public men. The Government Order G.O.M.S. No. 386 was issued to provide for a machinery for such inquiry. That order is produced as Ext. P-1 in this writ petition. 'Public men' included among others a Minister of State including the Chief Minister. A person seeking an inquiry had to address a petition to the Chief Secretary to Government requesting for such an enquiry into the allegations of misconduct. 'Misconduct' is given a fairly wide definition in Clause.1 of that Order. Perhaps to checkmate indiscriminate and irresponsible applications seeking inquiry, it was provided that the petition should be accompanied by an affidavit in support of the allegation and also a treasury receipt evidencing the deposit of a sum of Rs. 500/-. Though the costs of a Commission may be enormous judged by the indication in the various orders constituting such Commissions, only a sum of Rs. 500/- was required as a deposit from the person seeking the inquiry -- one had to pay the piper, albeit nominally to have the tune. The procedure to be followed after the receipt of a petition is indicated in Clause.3 to 5 of that Order.

(3.) The petitioner herein claims to be a public worker engaged in social activities in and around the Trivandrum City. Complying with the formalities contemplated under Ext. P-1 he sent a request Ext. P-2 to the Chief Secretary to Government on 16-3-1982. Various acts and omissions had been mentioned in that petition which, according to the petitioner, represented "only a few instances of corruption practices by Sri R. Balakrishna Pillai when he was acting as Minister for Electricity". He staled that he was prepared to substantiate the allegations contained in the petition. He was "confident that on a perusal of the records a prima facie case could be made out justifying the reference of the case to a commission of inquiry". He reserved the right to add "a few more allegations of corruption against Sri R. Balakrishna Pillai at the time when the matter is enquired into by a Commission appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act".