ANTONIO SEQUEIRA COUTINHO PEREIRA Vs. STATE OF GOA THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the Notification dated 10th November, 2000 issued by the Government of Goa in exercise of powers conferred by Sub -section (1) of Section 7 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 ('the Act' for short), declaring that the Commission of Inquiry shall cease to exist with effect from 10.11.2000.

(2.) THE Government of Goa, by the Notification dated 9th May, 2000, appointed a retired Judge of Bombay High Court at Goa, to be the Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making inquiry in relation to the evacuee property of late Count of Maem under the terms of reference mentioned therein. The terms of reference are reproduced hereinbelow. 1. Whether the above Officers while functioning as Custodian of Evacuee Property have: a) failed in their duty under the Act by allowing unauthorised persons to encroach upon the Evacuee property at Maem? b) committed any fraud by not taking any action to remove the encroachers from the Evacuee Property? c) mismanaged the affairs of the Evacuee Property thereby causing heavy loss of income? d) committed the aforesaid illegalities for personal gain or received any illegal gratification from any source? e) committed breach of trust under the Administration of of Evacuee Property Act by not following the procedure as required under the said Act while dealing with or managing the affairs of the said property? f) committed gross illegality and misuse of powers by not releasing of the Chapel property at Maem, which was declared as Non -evacuee Property by the Custodian by order date 14 -11 -1967? g) action of non -release of Chapel property was for any illegal gratification? 2. a) whether any other officers are responsible for committing irregularities in the Evacuee Property at Maem? b) what action be proposed by the Commission against those found guilty, responsible, accountable in this matter? c) whether the matter relating to Southern lote of the property should be kept pending till decision of the Civil Court as regards the title dispute and other rights of the parties under the Will and the property as such be continued as Evacuee Property till then? d) to identify the beneficiaries of the irregularities committed by any of the Custodian of Evacuee Property? e) recommend action against such beneficiaries of the illegalities, irregularities. f) whether any of the Evacuee Properties have been unauthorisedly and/or illegally granted, leased or otherwise given by any of the Custodian of Evacuee Property? g) to identify the losses sustained, suffered by the State as Trustees of Evacuee Property on account of any illegal acts of the Custodians?

(3.) THE present petitioner claims to be the successor of the estate of Count of Maem which was declared as evacuee property under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act and as such vested in the Custodian appointed under the Act. It may not be out of context to state that the petitioner's claim as a successor to the estate is disputed and the dispute is pending in the Civil Court. Be that as it may, it is crystal clear that the petitioner is a person interested in the evacuee property.