S.K.Mal Lodha, J. - (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:- 1. Whether there has been a change in the cycle of climate so that heavy rains will continue to come to this area? 2. Has there been any failure on the part of any government agency in taking steps to prevent the breach of dam? 3. Was it possible for the government officials to have conveyed information of the incoming flood to all or any parts of the flood affected areas? 4. Did any government official fail to convey information even though it was possible so to do and what were the reasons therefor? 5. What is the extent of damage caused to human life and to property? 6. What measures are to be taken to rehabilitate those who have been affected by these flood waters both from the point of view of immediate steps and long term steps? 7. What steps should be taken to prevent recurrence of flood, and 8. What machinery be devised whereby people can be informed well in advance of the incoming flood so that they may shift to safe areas?
(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,- "That the petitioner being a resident of Jodhpur was not at all personally or otherwise affected by the aforesaid floods. Even otherwise, the petitioner has suffered no legal grievances so as to be entitled him to ask for a mandamus. The petitioner's legal right has not been infringed and hence, this writ petition is not maintainable." It was asserted that the petitioner has no vested right, constitutional or at common law, to compel the State Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, for, there is no question of any discrimination. In rejoinder, in para 2, the petitioner has averred that on account of what happened to the flood stricken areas, the economy and the life of the city of Jodhpur was seriously affected and it caused a great mental and emotional suffering to the citizens of Jodhpur including the petitioner. It may also be mentioned that the petitioner, in para C/2 of the writ petition, has stated that demand was made from all sides for appointment of a Commission of Inquiry headed by a Judge of tliis Court; that such demand was made by various political parties including the Communist Party of India and by the Indian National Congress and by several other public bodies. He has referred to the demand made by Shri Mathuradas Mathur--a Congress M.L.A. and a leader of the Congress Legislative Party in Rajasthan Vidhan Sabha, and also to a demand made in a Press Conference held on July 28, 1979. It has been stated that demand for appointment of a Commission of Inquiry was also made when he met Shri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, Chief Minister of the State on July 29, 1979 but nothing was done in the matter and the State Government did not find it convenient to institute an inquiry by appointment of a Commission. In this state of pleadings, I am called upon to determine the aforesaid question.;