The Aryavarth Express
Aryavarth (Punjab, Haryana): The Punjab and Haryana High Court has settled the issue of whether the government has the power to revive or continue an Inquiry Commission after its term has ended. The matter was referred to a third judge, Justice Anil Kshetarpal, due to a difference of opinion between the two judges of the Division Bench.
The case pertained to an Inquiry Commission constituted by the Haryana government to investigate the grant of licenses for developing colonies in certain villages. The Commission submitted its report on August 31, 2016, the last day of its term. However, the Division Bench found that the notice issued to the petitioner was illegal as it failed to disclose sufficient details and did not comply with the conditions laid down under Section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
The key issue before the court was whether the government had the power to revive or continue the Commission to complete the inquiry in accordance with the law, considering the subsequent order passed by the court.
Justice Kshetarpal, after a thorough analysis of the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, held that the government has the power to order the continuation of the Commission if its previous term has come to an end, but no conscious decision was taken under Section 7 of the Act declaring that its continuation is unnecessary.
The court emphasized that the purpose of establishing an Inquiry Commission is to inquire into any definite matter of public importance and perform specified functions. In the absence of a conscious decision by the government that the purpose for which the Inquiry Commission was appointed has become unnecessary, the Commission continues in suspended animation, subject to the government’s decision.
The court clarified that the official notification issued by the government ending the tenure of the Commission and a notification issued under Section 7 of the Act for cessation of the Commission cannot be equated. The continued existence of the Commission ceases only as per the procedure laid down in Section 7(1)(a) and (b) of the Act.
In the present case, the government ended the working of the Commission by issuing a notification, but it was not a notification of cessation under Section 7(1)(a). The court held that after the submission of the report, the Commission remained in suspended animation, subject to the decision of the case.
The court also noted that the Act nowhere mentions that after the submission of the inquiry report, the Commission becomes functus officio or ceases to exist. Section 7 clearly lays down the procedure for the appropriate authority to declare the cessation of the Commission.
Justice Kshetarpal concurred with the opinion of the second judge of the Division Bench, granting liberty to the government to take a decision for the continuation of the Commission as it may deem fit. The court allowed the Commission to continue the proceedings from the stage when notice under Section 8B of the Act was required to be issued.
The judgment clarifies the powers of the government in relation to Inquiry Commissions and emphasizes the importance of interpreting statutes according to the legislative intent. It upholds the spirit of the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, which envisages the continuous proceedings of Inquiry Commissions, subject to the decision of the government, until their purpose is fulfilled or a conscious decision is taken for their cessation.
