VIJAY MEHTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution raises a short but interesting question regarding locus standi of the petitioner to maintain the petition in which he has sought issuance of appropriate writ, direction or order against the respondent (State of Rajasthan) to appoint a Commission of Inquiry headed by a Judge of this Court for the purpose of making inquiry into the following:-

(2.) The writ petition came up for admission on August 7, 1979 when I ordered issuance of a notice to the respondent to show cause as to why it be not admitted? Reply to show cause notice was filed on behalf of the respondent on Sept. 21, 1979. When it came up for admission on Nov. 12, 1979, learned Government Advocate urged on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition. As the question related to the maintainability of the writ petition, I heard it at considerable length and now I proceed to decide it.

(3.) In para A/2 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he is at present Secretary of the Jodhpur City Committee of the Communist Party of India and a member of the Rajasthan State Communist Party. In para E, he has stated that he is entitled to invoke jurisdiction of this Court for enforcement of fundamental duties cast upon him by Clauses (g), (i) and (j) of Article 51-A of the Constitution and that this Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 for enforcement of his fundamental duties which he has not been able to do on account of failure on the part of the Executive Government to help him so to do. In reply to the show cause notice, the respondent has stated that having regard to the scheme and purport of tha Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (No. LX of 1952) (for short, 'the Act' hereafter), the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the petition, for, the inquiry under the Act is not a judicial inquiry and the object of constituting a Commission of Inquiry is simply to enable the Government to make up its mind as to what legislative and administrative measures should be adopted to eradicate the evil found or to implement the beneficial object it has in view, and that it is merely a fact finding body for the benefit of the Government. According to the respondent, there is no statutory or other obligation upon the State Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry even if there is a definite matter of public importance. It has also been stated that the petitioner is not entitled to ask for the reliefs mentioned above as there vests no right in him which he seeks to enforce. TO quote from the reply, the case of the respondent in this regard further is,-