GANGADHAR LAXMAN REDDY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Returnable forthwith. Mr. C.J. Sawant, Advocate General for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Rana for respondent No. 2 waive service. By consent, petition taken on board and called out for hearing. Heard Counsel. On January 25, 1993 Government of Maharashtra exercised powers conferred by section 3 and section 5 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and appointed Commission of Inquiry of Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna, a sitting Judge of this Court to inquire into and make report on-

(2.) JUSTICE Srikrishna Commission commenced work in July 1993 and affidavits were called from the public. The Commission recorded statements of about 400 witnesses and statements of Police Officers posted at the Police Stations within whose jurisdiction the riot had taken place. During the hearing before the Commission some Parties claimed that the Commission should also investigate the circumstances and the events which, led to Bomb Blasts which rocked the Metropolis on March 12, 1993. The Commission naturally did not permit the parties to go into that aspect in absence of specific terms of reference.

(3.) THE petitioner who has participated in several political and social movements in Maharashtra and who has deposed before Justice Srikishna Commission has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the issuance of Notification amending terms of reference on various grounds. Mrs. Bhagwat, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Government of Maharashtra was not an appropriate Government to issue Notification. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Notification suffers from vice of non-application of mind and power is not exercised bona fide. It was also contended that the power has been exercised mala fide and the object of issuance of Notification was to disrupt the work of the Commission in operation for last over two years as well as to create impediments in the smooth trial of the criminal case involving large number of accused in respect of serial Bomb Blasts. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State Government controverted the submission while the counsel for Commission submitted to the order of Court.