RAJ KAMAL JOHRI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions present common grievance, of the petitioners on points of law and hence have been heard together. This common order shall dispose of the same. The State Government, vide a notification dated November 4, 2012, appointed a Commission of Inquiry consisting of Hon'ble Justice Susanta Chatterjee (since retired) (hereafter the Commission) to inquire into an incident of police firing on July 21, 1993 at Central Calcutta during a "Mahakaran Abidjan", resulting in the death of 13 (thirteen) persons and injury to several others. The terms of reference of the Commission read as follows:

(2.) Mr. Dinesh Chandra Vajpai (hereafter Mr. Vajpai), Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh (hereafter Mr. Singh) and Mr. Raj Kamal Johri (hereafter Mr. Johri), the three petitioners were Additional Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police (South Division) and Joint Commissioner of Police, Calcutta Police, respectively on the date the incident of firing occurred. All these officers, however, have since retired from service.

(3.) Since Mr. Singh and Mr. Johri were holding responsible positions on the relevant date, the Commission was of the view that their versions in respect of such incident would be material and relevant for deciding the terms of reference. Accordingly, a summons dated October 10, 2012 under section 4 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereafter the Act) was issued to Mr. Singh directing him to appear in person before the Commission on November 20, 2012. By a notice dated February 27, 2013 issued under section 4 read with section 8B of the Act, Mr. Johri was called upon "to appear and to depose on or before the Commission" on March 26, 2013. Mr. Singh and Mr. Johri presented separate writ petitions before this Court feeling aggrieved by such summons/notice. The basic point, among other points, that was canvassed before the Court was that the Commission erred in the exercise of its jurisdiction in calling upon the noticees to bare their defence even before statements of the private witnesses (having knowledge about the incident of firing) were received. They had also challenged the very constitution of the Commission by the Government. The writ petition of Mr. Singh was disposed of on November 21, 2012 whereas that of Mr. Johri was disposed of on March 25, 2013. Limited relief was granted to Mr. Singh and Mr. Johri on the authority of the decision of the Supreme Court Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry, 1989 1 SCC 494. The challenge to the constitution of the Committee was not examined, being premature and liberty was granted to raise such point in future proceedings, if required. One particular paragraph from the order dated November 21, 2012 passed on the writ petition filed by Mr. Singh, which was also directed to apply mutatis mutandis to Mr. Johri by the order dated March 25, 2013 passed on his writ petition, reads as follows: