ARUN SHRIDHAR BONDALE Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 10th March, 1990, in the Hussain Sagar Lake of Hyderabad City a tragic event occurred. The bigest statute of Lord Buddha was to be erected on that day in the centre of the lake on a high platform specially constructed and named the Rock of Gibralter. When the statute was put on a barge for bieng taken to the Rock of Gibralter, the statute sank resulting in considerable damage: some lives also were lost. In connection with that incident; the Government of Andhra Pradesh, by G.O.R"t.No.l049, General Administration Department, dt.13-3-90 appointed Shri Justice P.A. Chowdary, a retired judge of this court, as Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. The terms of reference of the Commission, as notified in the Government Order, are as follows:-

(2.) On 24-9-90 the petitioner's affidavit averring the details about the work entrusted to him and other related matters which was sworn to on 20-9-90 was filed in the Commission. On 7-9-90 the recording of evidence of C.W.1, Shri Rajender Kumar, was over. A memo was filed on behalf of the petitioner by his counsel before the Commission stating "the petitioners advocate was present today at 10-30 a.m. and was told that the Honourable Judge is not sitting today and hence it is humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to hold the enquiry on next date on which date the counsel for the petitioner wants to cross-examine C.W.I Shri Rajender Kumar who was examined in the case in the interests of justice". Two similar applications were filed on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 6. On these petitions arguments were heard on 11-10-90 by the Commission and they were dismissed by a reasoned order dt.12-10-90.

(3.) Alleging that on 11-10-90 when arguments were heard on the application filed by the petitioner to recall C.W.I for cross examination, the learned judge who presided over the Commission commented in the open Court-hall of the Commission about the competency of the counsel whether he know the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act and also whether he knew any law and further threatened my advocate that he will impose costs of rupees ten thousands for having filed the petition on 5-9-90 for recalling Mr. Rajender Kumar for the purpose of cross-examination on my behalf", this writ petition was filed inter alia, seeking a mandamus declaring that the enquiry conducted by the Commission is illegal and opposed to principles of natural justice and the order passed on 12-10-90 rejecting the application to recall C.W.1 for cross-examination is also illegal and consequently direct the first respondent, State Government, "to appoint some other Judge as the Inquiry Officer". In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, apart from the other allegations, it was averred that the learned Judge showed disrespect to the counsel in the court-hall and when the petitioner met the presiding Judge on 26-10-90, he was informed by the Judge that costs between rupees five thousands and rupees ten thousands would be imposed "in the event of my Advocate insisting on cross-examination of Mr .Rajender Kumar (C.W.1) and others". The order passed on 12-10-90 rejecting the request for cross-examination of C.W.I was also not communicated. Without formulating any procedure as required u/s. 8, the Commission commenced its proceedings. The entire proceedings it was averred, were vitiated because of impermissible bias.