IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5111 of 2009 DISTRICT BAR ASSOCIATION,BHAGALPUR CIVIL COURT PS- KOTWALI,DISTT- BHAGALPUR THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECY. SRI OM PRAKASH BARNWAL-----PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECY. OLD SECRETARIATE,PATNA 2. SECY.DEPARTMENT OF HOME(SPECIAL) OLD SECRETARIATE,PATNA,BIHAR 3. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA------------RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Shivaji Pandey,Sr. Advocate Mr.M.K.Singh, Advocate For the State: Mr. A.C. to SC-1 For the High Court: Mr. T.K.Jha, Sr.Advocate Mr. Anish Kumar Apu,Advocate --------- 5 9.9.2009 The Bar Association of Bhagalpur Civil Court has filed the present writ application for quashing the Notification No.4881/C dated 8.5.2008 which has been issued by the State of Bihar under the purported exercise of power conferred upon the Government under section 7(i)(a) of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. By virtue of the said notification, the Commission of Enquiry constituted to enquire into the background and the reasonings for the incidence which took place in the Bhagalpur Civil Court campus on 17th_18th November, 1997 stands denotified with effect from 1.11.2006. The Enquiry Commission was constituted vide Notification No. 167 dated 21.11.1997 but no report, preliminary or otherwise ever come to be submitted to the Government by the Commission till the date it was denotified. The brief background to the present litigation is that a Sessions Trial No. 592 of 1992 was being held in the court of one Sri D.N. Barai, 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in which one Jokku Singh, the Investigating Officer, - 2 - was one of the witnesses who was examined on 7.5.1997. Since cross-examination could not be completed, the matter was adjourned to yet another date and then several dates but this witness did not appear. Several efforts were made by the court to procure the attendance of the Investigating Officer but the same having failed, non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against him. The I.O. did not appear before the court even then. He suddenly appeared on 17.11.1997 in the afternoon when he was arrested on the basis of non-bailable warrant of arrest issued earlier and taken into custody. Since the bail application was filed on his behalf after the court hours, the court ordered its hearing the next date. The above act of the court seems to have irked the policemen. The office bearers of the Association of the District decided to take law in their own hands by entering the court room and the chamber of the concerned judge, assaulting him and the other advocates available on the campus indiscriminately. Unruly behaviors and the conduct of the policemen in uniform created a lot of heat and news in the State. Several cases came to be filed including initiation of contempt proceeding against the named persons. Departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings were also initiated. It may be recorded that some of the accused persons were found to be guilty of contempt and punished as well. On their conviction the matter travelled to Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Apex court did not interfere with the punishment. The decision is the case of Daroga Singh & others vrs. B. K. Pandey - 3 - 2004(3) PLJR 160 (SC). Certain punishment orders in the departmental proceedings too came to be passed against the guilty persons including dismissal. Looking at the seriousness of the issue the State of Bihar in exercise of power under section 3 of Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 constituted a Commission of Enquiry to enquire into the background, reasons and the facts leading to the incident vide Notification No. 707 dated 11.12.1997. Hon’ble Justice B.P. Singh of Patna High Court (as he then was) was appointed as a sole member of the Commission. He was to submit a report within a period of one month from the date of inception of the Commission. But obviously for a many reasons the proceeding did not start before 12.1.1998. Mr. Justice B. P. Singh during the course of the enquiry came to be appointed as Chief Justice of Bombay High Court and subsequently to the Supreme Court of India. His place was taken by Hon’ble Nagendra Rai (as he then was) who was replaced by Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.S. Garg and then by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kumar Prasad. From the pleadings and the facts, it emerges that the last Member of the Commission conducted the proceeding, examined witnesses which carried on till 15.12.2005. The matter get adjourned on that date for filing of written statements or suggestions by all the parties but thereafter for one reason or the other no sitting of the Commission came to be held thereafter. Ultimately since no report came from the one man Commission of Enquiry despite the same being in - 4 - existence of almost ten years, the Government of Bihar vide Notification dated 8th May, 2008 in exercise of power under section 7(i)(a) of the Act, denotified the Commission for the reasons indicated therein. This has irked the members of the Bar Association of Bhagalpur Civil Court and they decided to file the present writ application seeking quashing of the notification which has been brought on record as annexure-1 to the writ application. Learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner submits that the basic ingredients of section 7(i) (a) of the Act not being present, the State authority had no power to denotify the commission. The authority ought to have allowed presentation of the report of the Commission which was of vital importance in view of the fact that the opinion of the Commission could have been a guiding principle to prevent future incidents and to send strong message to any such person much less the police officials from indulging in uncivilized act of the kind which led to ugly incident in the civil court. Even the lawyers would have been entitled to claim compensation on the basis of the findings of the Commission. He placed reliance on some decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of his submission. These cases are (State of Gujrat vrs. Consumer & Education Research Centre & others along with Bechar Bhai Jadavji vs. State of Gujrat & others) reported in AIR 1984 SC 652 as well as (T. Fenn Walter & others vrs. Union of India & others) reported in (2002)6 SCC 184(emphasis on paragraph 16 of the said - 5 - decision). It is also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision reported in the case of Daroga Singh (Supra) in paragraph 47 had given a direction to the High Court to monitor the activities of the Commission of Enquiry so that an early report could be submitted. In face of the same the State Government could not or ought not to have denotified the Commission. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the official respondents specially the Secretary (Home) Department, Government of Bihar. They have taken a stand that the Commission of Enquiry had to be denotified in the background that it was constituted in the year, 1997 but till the date of denotification, the Government was not handed over any interim or final report despite several extensions granted over the decade. After all an Enquiry Commission cannot be allowed to function indefinitely. It is also submitted that over the passage of time, since the incident, most of the persons or accused have already been dealt with either in contempt proceeding initiated by the High Court or in the departmental enquiry which was instituted against them. It has also been pointed out that a PIL was filed by one Benoyanand Mishra against the said denotification which was registered as CWJC No. 14548 of 2008. After due arguments it was dismissed by a Division Bench on 28.11.2008. In view of the - 6 - same the present writ application ought not to be entertained and any interference with the notification would be unnecessary exercise and will be a drain on the meager resources and no useful purpose will be served in the above stated background. This Court is not unmindful of the fact and the background under which the Commission of Enquiry came to be constituted way back in the year, 1997 but it is also a fact that no report of any kind, interim or final, ever came to be presented to the State Government till the date of denotification i.e. on 8th May, 2008. The Court would not like to deal with or go into the reasons why the Commission of Enquiry could not or did not give its report but the factum that no report was ever submitted cannot be over looked. A Commission of Enquiry set up in the given circumstances by the State Government has a purpose and object, but if the Commission of Enquiry neither completes its proceedings nor tenders its opinion within a reasonable time frame the whole object and purpose behind the said constitution gets lost. If the matter becomes too stale it serves none. For some reason or the other, in this country, Commissions of Enquiry have a reputation of dragging on from years to years if not a decade may be two. This Court also cannot ignore the fact that Commission of the Enquiry also draws from the limited resources available with the State Government. The State Government has many other obligations to fulfil. - 7 - In the present case the State Government does not have the privilege or wisdom of the Enquiry Commission, despite passage of nine years since its initial constitution. If taking into consideration the various developments which took place in the meanwhile against the guilty persons and the accused, the State Government decided to denotify the Commission it has only done a prudent thing. Looking at the background to the present dispute the Court has no hesitation in recording that allowing the writ application and reviving the so called Commission of Enquiry will serve purpose of none. This writ application has no merit and is therefore dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)