T CHITRA Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition was preferred by the petitioner against G. O. Ms. No. 742, Public (Law and Order - F)Department, dated 27th July, 2006, published in the Tamil nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary No. 177 dated 27th july, 2006, in Part-II - Section 2, whereby one man commissions of Inquiry of Justice Thiru. K. P. Sivasubramaniam was constituted to inquire into the allegations of fraudulent grabbing of land assigned to Adi Dravidar (S. C.)and landless poor in Siruthavur Village, Chengalpet Taluk, kancheepuram District under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.

(2.) THE main grounds of challenge as noticed by learned single Judge, who referred the matter for hearing by division Bench are :

(3.) ACCORDING to Mr. Jothi, learned counsel for the petitioner, though Section 3 of the Act authorise the appropriate Government to appoint a Commission upon a resolution in this regard, being passed in the Legislative assembly, but admittedly no such resolution has been passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. One statement was made in the Assembly under rule 110 of the Tamil Nadu assembly Rules by the Chief Minister, which is different from the resolution of the Assembly and, therefore, the impugned Government Order is liable to be quashed. The petitioner has been issued with a notice of summons u/s 8-B of the Act and according to the petitioner she will be prejudiced by the order of the Commission if it is allowed to be continued and for that she has preferred the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned government Order has not been expressed in the name of the governor as required under the law and, thus, it cannot be termed to be a notification under Article 166 (1) of the constitution of India read with Rule 12 of the Rules of executive Business. It having not been exercised in the name of the Governor in the manner it should be done, it is fit to be set aside. Under Rules of Executive Business, no provision having been made in regard to appointment of Commission under the commission of Enquiry Act, 1952, the matter should have been placed before the cabinet, which was not placed in the present case. Further, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, neither the Chief Minister nor an individual minister could exercise power under Article 166 (1) of the constitution of India.