Grover, J. - (1.) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against two orders made on 7th April 1959 and 8th April 1959 by the Commission of Inquiry appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (to be referred to as the Act), the petitioners being Messrs. Allen Berry and Co. Private Limited and Shri Ram Krishan Dalmia.
(2.) By means of a Notification dated 11th December, 1956 the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under the Act appointed a Commission of Inquiry (hereinafter called the Commission) to enquire into the affairs of the petitioners and various other person and companies mentioned in the said Notification for the purposes specified therein. On the 9th January 1957 another Notification was issued providing that all the provisions of sub sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of S. 5 would apply to the Commission. On 12th February, 1957 three miscellaneous petitions were filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court at Bombay challenging the validity of the Act and the Notification dated 11th December, 1956 on various grounds. The Commission then consisted of late Justice S. R. Tendolkar as Chairman and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as Members. The Writ Petitions were disposed of by the Bombay High Court on 29th April 1957. The petitions failed except to the extent that it was ordered that the said Notification was legal and valid except as to the last part of clause (10) into which the Commission had to inquire, namely, "and the action which in the opinion of the Commission should be taken as by way of securing redress or punishment or to Act as preventive in future cases" and the Commission was directed not to proceed with the inquiry pursuant to that part of clause (10). An appeal having been brought to the Supreme Court from the judgment of the Bombay High Court, their Lordships confirmed the decision of the High Court except that the contention raised on behalf of the Union of India was allowed to the extent that only the words "by way of redress or punishment" occurring in the latter portion of clause (10) of the Notification were directed to be deleted. In other words the latter portion of clause (10) after the judgment of the Supreme Court was to run as under : "and the action which in the opinion of the Commission should be taken ............... to Act as a preventive in future cases" The judgment of the Supreme Court is reported in Ramkrishna Dalmia v. S. R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538, and will have to be referred to for various matters.
(3.) Late Justice S. R. Tendolkar having resigned from the Chairmanship of the Commission, respondent No. 1 was appointed as its Chairman on 28th August 1958. The Commission as at present constituted consists of the Chairman, who is respondent No. 1, and the two Members, namely respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Respondent No. 4 is the Solicitor to the Commission and Respondent No. 5 is the Secretary. While the evidence was being recorded at Calcutta towards the end of March 1959 the petitioner raised certain objections orally which were incorporated in a formal application dated 4th April, 1959 (Annexure E). The points which have now been agitated before us were raised in some form or the other in that application and a subsequent application of 7th April 1950 submitted on behalf of Shri R. Dalmia. The objections that were raised and which related substantially to the procedure which was being followed by the Commission were dismissed by the Commission by its order made on 8th April 1959. By the order passed on 7th April 1959, the Commission declined to entertain the application presented on that day.;