A.Banerji, J. - (1.) The Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the " petitioner-company", made an application, A/83, for summoning certain documents including the "report of the Company Law Board on Swadeshi Polytex, Ghaziabad, on the investigation made by them under Sections 239 of the Companies Act and all papers connected therewith ". By an order dated 1st August, 1979, this court had directed that the report of the inspector made under Section 239 of the Companies Act, submitted to the Company Law Board may be summoned from the Board. Thereupon, Mr. V.K. Burman, learned chief standing counsel for the Central Govt., claimed privilege in respect of the above document and filed the affidavit of Shri S. Balaraman, Under-Secretary to the Company Law Board. In this affidavit, A/199, it was stated : "2. I have carefully considered the said document and have come to the conclusion that it contains communications made in official confidence and I consider that public interest would suffer by their disclosure for the reasons stated hereinafter. 3. In this connection, it is respectfully submitted that the inspection report represents only the inspector's views without reference to any possible explanations of the company concerned and are therefore one-sided. Further the opinion given in the report are neither binding on the Government nor on companies and such reports are treated as confidential. The inspector's report is not even evidence of authoritative opinion, has no evidentiary value except for what the inspector might have stated and to make it public may also affect the follow-up action by the department. Moreover, if the inspection reports are made public, it will result in a situation where the inspectors will not express their free and frank opinion and the inspection will not be effective or purposeful. 4. I, therefore, claim privilege under Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872."
(2.) I have heard Mr. V.K. Burman and Mr. Raja Ram Agarwal, counsel for the petitioner-company. They had addressed the court on the scope of Sections 124 of the Evidence Act as well as on the maintainability of the claim of privilege. It will, therefore, be relevant to refer to Sections 124 of the Evidence Act. It reads as follows : "124. Official communications.--No public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence, when he considers that the public interests would suffer by the disclosure."
(3.) The above section makes it clear that a public officer cannot be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence when the public officer is of the opinion that public interest would suffer by the disclosure. If public interest suffers, the public officer cannot be compelled to disclose the communication or the matter in the document concerned. It is also settled that it is for the public officer to satisfy himself that the matter, the production of which is claimed, is one the disclosure whereof would affect the public interest. If this is so, the court shall not compel that public officer to produce that document or paper. A duty is cast on the court also to satisfy itself that the plea raised by the public officer is tenable.;