JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, J. - All the three applications are under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for striking down the Notification No. 813-EC, dated October 26, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Notification) issued by the Home Department of the Government of Orissa. 2. All the three writ applications, heard analogously, challenge the validity of the Notification appointing a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Schedule to the Notification gives the names of 15 persons against whom inquiry is to be made. The Petitioners in the three O.J.Cs. have respectively been referred to in Items 6, 2 and 12 of the Schedule. The State of Orissa; Secretary, Home Department; Justice Shri H.R. Khanna, the 'Commissioner of Inquiry, and Shri R.N. Singh Deo, Chief Minisater of Orissa, are opposite parties 1 to 4 respectively in all the writ applications. In O.J.C. 418, Shri Harekrushna Mahatab. Shri Nabakrushna Choudhury, Shri Pahitra Mohau Pradhan, Shri Santanu Kumar Das and Shri Surendranath Patnaik were originally impleaded as opposite parties Nos. 5 to 9. Shri Biju Patnaik filed an application in this case to be impleaded as an opposite party. None of the parties had any objection and he was allowed to be impleaded as an opposite party DO. 10. The learned advocates of the parties made a prayer that the annexures, filed in all the applications, be used as annexures in every writ application. This prayer was allowed on January 11, 1968. The substance of the allegations in all the writ applications are almost identical excepting some differences in detailed narrating of facts. The case of the Petitioners is stated hereunder. Shri Harekrushna Mahtab was the Chief Minister of Orissa from 1947 to 1949. Shri Nabakrushna Choudhury was the Chief Minister from 1950 to 1956. In the 1957 general election to the Orissa Legislative Assembly (hereinafter to be referred to as the Assembly), out of 140 seats the Congress party got only 56 seats. Despite it, however, Shri Harekrushna Mahatab formed the Ministry with the support of other members so as to have the majority. He, however, did not have a stable Government and had to resign in 1959 due to withdrawal of support by some of the groups in the Assembly. Despite it, however, Shri Harekrushna Mahatab formed the Ministry with the support of other members so as to have the majority. He, however, did not have a stable Government and had to resign in 1959 due to withdrawal of support by some of the groups in the Assembly. In May, 1959, he formed a coalition ministry with the help of Ganatantra Parishad of which Shri Singh Deo (opp.party-4) was the leader. Shri Singh Deo became the Finance Minister and the Deputy Leader in the (sic) Government. During the Coalition ministry, there developed acute difference of opinion in the Orissa Congress Legislative party over the conduct and programme of the coalition ministry. The Congress Legislative party was divided into two groups-one under the leadership of Shri Harekrushna Mahtab and the other under the leadership of Shri Biju Patnaik. Shri Mahtab having lost the support of the majority of the Congress Legislative party could not continue his coalition ministry with the support of the Ganatantra Parishad, and the coalition ministry had to resign in February, 1961. The Assembly dissolved and there Wits President's rule for sometime. During the President's rule, a mid-term election was held in May, 1961. Shri Mahtab did not stand for election to the Assembly from the Congress party even though be was offered a seat in the mid-term election. The Congress party had a spectacular success capturing 80 seats out of 140 under the leadership of Shri Biju Patnaik. By then, the Ganatantra Parishad had joined the Swatantra party of India. Even though the Congress Legislative party had a strength of more than to members, the group of members, who were under the leadership of Shri Mahatab, were disgrunted from 1961 to the End of 1966. That group defected from the Congress party and formed a separate political party in the name of "Jana Congress". From 1961 till the end of 1966, this group had its secret alliance with the Swatantra party and Praja Socialist party, who were in the Opposition camp in the Assembly and went on creating obstruction from within to the smooth administration by the Congress party who had a superior numerical strength. The defectionists were causing obstruction as only Shri Pabitra Mohan Pradhan, and not others from amongst them was included in the Council of Ministers. While Shri Biju Patnaik was the Chief Minister, Shri Biren Mitra was the Deputy Chief Minister. The defectionists were causing obstruction as only Shri Pabitra Mohan Pradhan, and not others from amongst them was included in the Council of Ministers. While Shri Biju Patnaik was the Chief Minister, Shri Biren Mitra was the Deputy Chief Minister. There was a firm called "Orissa Agents" in the name of Mrs. Mitra which was doing business and at times made some supplies to some of the department of the Government. The group in the Congress Legislative party under the leadership of Shri Mahtab and Shri Pabitra Mohan Pradhan in conspiracy with the members of the Swatantra party and Praja Socialist party carried on false and vicious propaganda. attacking the honesty of Shri Biren Mitra. There was vigorous debate in the Assembly making direct attack on the honesty and integrity of Shri Mitra and there was a demand in the Assembly for appointment of a Commission of Inquiry. Government of Orissa did not agree to the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry. Shri Biju Patnaik referred the matter to Shri Singh Deo (opposite party No. 4), leader of the Opposition and Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. The Chief Secretary was directed to make all Government papers available to Shri Singh Deo. Initially Shri Singh Deo accepted the responsibility, but later on expressed his unwillingness. The Government had a special audit of the allegations and sent the report to the Public Accounts Committee for reference in the year 1964. Though it was the duty of Shri Singh Deo, as the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, to submit report to the Assembly every year, he contrived not to submit the report, lest the malice behind those false allegations would be publicly exposed. He managed to keep the false rumours alive so as to take advantage of those false rumours in the elections during the year 1967 and the matter is still pending before the Public Accounts Committee of the Assembly. During the election of the year 1967, almost all the political groups in the Assembly entered into an electoral alliance and fought against the Congress party. The Congress party became a minority in the Assembly having a strength of only 31, members while the Swatantra party had a strength of 49 members. During the election of the year 1967, almost all the political groups in the Assembly entered into an electoral alliance and fought against the Congress party. The Congress party became a minority in the Assembly having a strength of only 31, members while the Swatantra party had a strength of 49 members. The Swatantra and the Jana Congress parties formed a coalition ministry with Shri Singh Deo as the Chief Minister and Shri Pabitra Mohan Pradhan as the Deputy Chief Minister. The Praja Socialist party had 21 members in the Assembly. While the matter was pending before the Public Accounts Committee of the Assembly, Shri Biju Patnaik resigned from the Chief Ministership of Orissa on 1-10-1963. He, however, continued to be the Chairman of the State Planning Board till 29-1-1965 when Shri Biren Mitra was the Chief Minister. Shri Mitra dropped out Shri Pabitra Mohan Pradhan from the cabinet. During the tenure of the office of Shri Mitra Its the Chief Minister of Orissa, some members of the Opposition in the Assembly, which included all the members of the Swatantra and Praja Socialist parties, with the secret support of the disgruntled group of the Congress Legislative party, filed a memorandum in 1964 before the President of India containing some false allegations, such as, misconduct" misappropriation fraud, negligence, favoritism, nepotism, illegalities, irregularities, improprieties and abuse of power in the matters of administration of the State and requesting the President of India to appoint a Commission of enquiry to enquire into those allegations against Shri Patnaik, Shri Mitra and other Ministers. The said memorandum contained all the allegations that are now contained in the Notification. The President referred the memorandum to his Council of Ministers who turned down the proposal for appointment of a Commission of inquiry but decided to have the allegations enquired into by the Central Bureau of Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as the C.B.I.) for collecting facts for the Central cabinet. The Government at the Centre, after receiving the C.B.I. 13 preliminary report and after detailed examination of Orissa Government officials and records. rejected the demand for appointment of a Commission of Inquiry and made a statement in the Parliament that all that was discovered by examination was that certain improprieties were committed and examination of relevant records and documents did not reveal any misconduct, misappropriation, fraud, negligence, favouritism, nepotism, illegalities, irregularities or abuse of power for personal gain. rejected the demand for appointment of a Commission of Inquiry and made a statement in the Parliament that all that was discovered by examination was that certain improprieties were committed and examination of relevant records and documents did not reveal any misconduct, misappropriation, fraud, negligence, favouritism, nepotism, illegalities, irregularities or abuse of power for personal gain. As a result of the said statement, Shri Biren Mitra, who was then the Chief-Minister, submitted his resignation and Shri Sadasiv Tripathy was elected as the leader of the Congress Legislative party and carried on administration as the Chief Minister of Orissa till the last general election. Soon after the formation of the present Ministry, it was declared that the Government of Orissa shall appoint a Commission of Inquiry to inquire into the conduct of some of the Ministers of the previous ministry. The Utkal Pradesh Congress Committee welcomed such an enquiry suggesting that the inquiry should be made into the conduct of the successive Orissa Ministers since 1947, that is from the beginning of the Congress Government in Orissa. After seeing the resolution of the Utkal Pradesh Congress Committee published in the newspapers, Shri Singh Deo declared on the floor of the Assembly that he accepted the request of the Congress party in Orissa to appoint a Commission on Inquiry to inquire into the conduct of the successive Ministries since 1947, without probably realising at that moment that in that case his own conduct, while he was the Deputy Chief Minister in the coalition ministry from 1959 to 1961, that of Shri Pabitra Mohan Pradhan, the present Deputy Chief Minister and that of Shri Mahtab who is the chief architect of the present coalition ministry, would come under the purview of the Commission. Later on, however, Shri Singh Deo backed out and declared in the Press and the Assembly that the Government of Orissa had decided to refer the matters alleged against such of the individual Ministers of the previous ministries since 1947 only when specific allegations against them lire received by the Government. This backing out was mala fide as Shri Singh Deo himself knew the various criticisms made on the floor of the Assembly against each successive ministries from 1952 onwards till 1959 regarding the acts of misconduct, misappropriation, fraud, negligence, favouritism, nepotism, abuse of power etc. This backing out was mala fide as Shri Singh Deo himself knew the various criticisms made on the floor of the Assembly against each successive ministries from 1952 onwards till 1959 regarding the acts of misconduct, misappropriation, fraud, negligence, favouritism, nepotism, abuse of power etc. After the declaration made by the Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition Shri Sadasiv Tripathy submitted a memorial to the President of India on June 27, 1967, with specific allegations against Shri Mahtab, Shri Nabakrishna Choudhury, Shri Singh Deo, Shri Pabitra Mohan Pradhan, Shri Santanu Kumar Das and Shri Surendranath Patnaik. A copy of the memorial was forwarded to Shri Singh Deo (opposite party No. 4) by Shri Sadasiv Tripathy on June 26, 1967 to be included in the terms of reference to the Commission of Inquiry, if and when it is appointed. On receipt of the memorial, the Central Government suggested to opposite party No. 4 that the task of preliminary verification of the allegations contained in the memorial should be entrusted to a retired Supreme Court Judge or a High Court Judge to see whether any prima facie case was made out, Opposite party No. 4, however, purposely delayed in implementing the Central Government's direction. The Government of Orissa, without proceeding in the matter as suggested by the Central Government, hurriedly came forward with the Notification to malign the reputation of the political rivals of opposite party No. 4 and of Shri Mahtab and his group-opposite parties Nos. 5 to 9. Justice Shri H.R. Khanna started the inquiry on November 8. 1967. On November 22, 1967 he came to the conclusion that the allegations against the Petitioner were of a general nature and factual particulars on which those were based were not given in the Notification. He accordingly directed the State to supply the factual particulars. The Commission acted beyond its jurisdiction in directing supply of factual particulars and should have stopped further inquiry on his own finding that there was nothing to inquire into in the absence of the particulars. The Petitioners Shri P.V. Jagannath Rao and Shri Santosh Kumar Sahu say that the particulars filed against them before the Commission are false and malicious and they have been implicated, because they had joined the cabinet of Shri Biju Patnaik and Shri Biren Mitra. The Petitioners Shri P.V. Jagannath Rao and Shri Santosh Kumar Sahu say that the particulars filed against them before the Commission are false and malicious and they have been implicated, because they had joined the cabinet of Shri Biju Patnaik and Shri Biren Mitra. Petitioner Shri Biren Mitra takes the further point that he had filed a civil suit for damages against (i) the Prajatantra Prachar samitee, (ii) Shri Janaki Banav Patnaik, Editor of the Eastern Times, and (iii) Shri Nisamoni Khuntia, Secretary, Sanjukta socialist Party, for false and defamatory allegations. The suit was declared and the matter of pending in first appeal in the High Court. The suit was to purge Shri Mitra of the defamatory allegations which are identical with the allegations in respect of which the Commission of Inquiry has been Bet up. He accordingly contended that the Commission of Inquiry cannot be set up relating to the very matter in respect of which the first appeal is pending. 3. Justice Shri H.R. Khanna, the Commission of Inquiry (opposite party-3) and Shri Nabakrushna Choudhury (opposite party-6) have filed no affidavits. AI] other opposite parties have filed affidavits. 4. The Home Secretary has filed affidavit on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2. Many of the facts stated in the writ applications are not disputed. His version is given hereunder: There is no question of rejection of proposal for appointment of a Commission of Inquiry by the Government of Orissa as such and even rejection of such a proposal can on no account debar the succeeding Government from appointing such a Commission of Inquiry. A Special Audit brought out various improprieties against the former Ministers. During the last general election, the Swatantra and Jana Congress parties placed before the electorate a twenty-one-point programme including the setting up of a Commission of inquiry. As soon as the present Government was formed, in the very address to the Legislature, the Government of the State announced the decision to set up a Commission of Inquiry into the charges of corruption and improprieties alleged to have been committed by the Ministers who were in office during the period between 1961 and 1967. The present Commission has been appointed in pursuance to the policy laid down in the address of the Governor. The report of the C.B.I. was not made public. The present Commission has been appointed in pursuance to the policy laid down in the address of the Governor. The report of the C.B.I. was not made public. The Central Cabinet found that improprieties were committed by some of the persons named in the Notification. There was a further declaration that Shri Biju Patnaik and Shri Biren Mitra were unworthy of holding any public office. The Governor in his speech bad declared that a Commission of Inquiry would inquire into the Charge of corruption and improprieties by the Ministers who were in office during a period earlier than 1961, 'if specific allegations were brought and a prima facie case was made out. No matter was brought out to the notice of the Government. A copy of the memorial submitted by Shri Sadasiv Tripathy, Leader of the Opposition, to the President was forwarded to the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister immediately replied that no prima facie case was made out in the memorial and all the same he requested the Home Minister of India to get the matter examined by a Judge of the Supreme Court and that in case such examination disclosed a prima facie case, be was prepared to refer the same to a Commission of Inquiry. The Home Minister returned the memorial saying that no sitting Judge can take up the matter and requested the Chief Minister to get the matter examined through a retired Judge. The Chief Minister has been taking steps in that direction. The Notification has been made in connection with some matters which were contained in the memorandum submitted to the President of India in 1964, besides other matters occurring before and after that date. The facts stated in the Notification are correct and are not false or malicious and are not meant to malign the reputation of any political rival of Shri R.N. Singh Deo or Shri Mahtab. The Notification is valid. Particulars of allegations are not required to be stated in the Notification and the Commission acted within its powers to call for further particulars. The Government came to the opinion that there were allegations regarding definite matters of public importance and it was clearly stated in the Notification that detailed particulars would be placed before the Commission which were actually placed before it on December 8, 1967. The Government came to the opinion that there were allegations regarding definite matters of public importance and it was clearly stated in the Notification that detailed particulars would be placed before the Commission which were actually placed before it on December 8, 1967. If those detail are examined, there shall be no doubt that the matters are definite matters of public importance. In the additional counter affidavit filed on January 8, 1968 in O.J.C. 396, the Home Secretary stated that the allegations regarding the matters for inquiry were before the State Government and they were taken into consideration before the aforesaid opinion was formed, and on the basis of the consideration and examination of materials, Government were satisfied about the existence of definite matters of public importance. 5. The substance of the affidavit of opposite party-4 is stated hereunder: The only object of the Commission is to purify administration and public life in the country. It is well known in the Stage that during 1961-1967 the persons named in the Schedule aimed at exploiting politics and Governmental management to serve their own ends, pecuniary or otherwise. During the Coalition Government from 1959, to 1961, Shri Biju Patnaik wanted certain favours from the Government, but opposite party No. 4 could not oblige him at the instance of Shri Biju Patnaik, the Coalition Government was dissolved. After Shri Biju Patnaik came to power, he changed the long standing procedure for commercial dealings by the State. He was openly advocating a policy that money for his party should be found from the coffers of the Govt. He wanted to start industry all over the State with Govt. money with Congressmen in management and wanted that all such industries would be controlled by him through his Kalinga group of industries. Only a year after Sri Patnaik's ministry came to office, there were serious complaints against Shri Biju Patnaik, Shri Biren Mitra and others in his cabinet in the matter of corruption and improprieties. The public opinion in Orissa rose in revolt. Shri Biju Patnaik made open statement in public meeting that during the period be was in political life be had become master of ten crores of rupees and that Shri Biren Mitra also acquired sixteen lakhs of rupees in course of a few years. The public opinion in Orissa rose in revolt. Shri Biju Patnaik made open statement in public meeting that during the period be was in political life be had become master of ten crores of rupees and that Shri Biren Mitra also acquired sixteen lakhs of rupees in course of a few years. Being cornered by attacks inside the Legislature, Shri Biju Patnaik asked opposite party No. 4 to examine the matter through Public Accounts Committee of which the latter was the Chairman as the leader of the Opposition. The only matter referred to was regarding the affairs of the Orissa Agents and not the affairs of Shri Biju Patnaik. Opp. party No. 4 initially accepted the responsibility but ultimately refused the same as he was of opinion that the public would not be satisfied by all inquiry made through the Public Accounts Committe. Repeated requests were made to Shri Biju Patnaik to appoint a Commission of Inquiry. When he was not found agreeable, a memorandum was submitted to the President of India, on July 20, 1964, calling upon him to have an inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act. Later on, two supplementary memoranda containing further charges were also filed. The Central Government did not set up a Commission of Inquiry. They gave the matter to the C.B.I. for enquiry which inquired into a few of the allegations contained in the memoranda. Even with respect to the few that were inquired into, their findings were all adverse to Shri Biju Patnaik and Shri Biren Mitra and many of his collegiates in the cabinet. In the Parliament, there was a declaration that Shri Biju Patnaik and many of his colleagues were guilty of administrative improprieties. Both Shri Biju Patnaik and Shri Biren Mitra were said to be unworthy to hold any office of responsibility. Though the then Prime Minister Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri compelled Shri Biju Patnaik and Shri Biren Mitra to resign their offices in the Orissa Government, they continued to hold important positions in the Congress party. Under the leadership of Shri Biju Patnaik, the Utkal Pradesh Congress Committee passed a resolution condemnig the decisions of the Cabinet Sub committee. This anomalous position created grave suspicions in the minds of the people. The demand for a Commission of Inquiry in the press and platform became insistent. Under the leadership of Shri Biju Patnaik, the Utkal Pradesh Congress Committee passed a resolution condemnig the decisions of the Cabinet Sub committee. This anomalous position created grave suspicions in the minds of the people. The demand for a Commission of Inquiry in the press and platform became insistent. In the Assembly as well as in the Parliament the matter was agitated through questions, motions and debates. In the joint election manifesto in the last general election, the Jana Congress and Swatantra parties sought a mandate from the electorate to set up a Commission of Inquiry. They were returned in overwhelming majority and constituted a Coalition Government, while Shri Biju Patnaik and many of his associates against whom there is allegation of corruption were not returned to the Legislature. Being afraid of the Commission of Inquiry that was proposed to be set up, Shri Biju Patnaik and his associates desired to widen the scope of the inquiry with the clear intention to delay and frustrate it. Their main demand was that the conduct of Ministers from year 1947 onwards should be enquired into, If the demand was really genuine and not mala fide, nothing prevented Shri Biju Patnaik, while he was the Chief Minister, to have set up a Commission of Inquiry against the Ministers before 1961. Despite it, however, in deference to the wishes of Shri Biju Patnaik and his group, the Governor in the opening address to the Legislature in 1967 declared that if any specific allegations were brought to the notice of the Government against the Ministers before 1961, Government was prepared to examine the matter to see if there was a prima facie case and then to make a reference, if necessary. Shri Sadasiv Tripathy and some other members of the Legislature submitted It memorial to the President and a copy of the same was sent to him. In the forwarding letter Shri Sadasiv Tripathy, however, stated that it would not be proper for Shri Singh Deo, or the officers under his control, to deal with those allegations. Under the circumstance', he was helpless in the matter. In the forwarding letter Shri Sadasiv Tripathy, however, stated that it would not be proper for Shri Singh Deo, or the officers under his control, to deal with those allegations. Under the circumstance', he was helpless in the matter. When later on, however, the Chief Minister received the memorial from the Home Minister of India, it was sent back with a request that some Judge of the Supreme Court to be nominated by the Chief Justice of India should be appointed to examine if there was a prima facie case. As the Home Minister wrote back that it was not possible to get the service of a sitting Judge, steps are being taken to get the matter examined through a retired Judge. 6. The affidavit of opposite parties Nos. 5, 7, 8 and 9 are substantially the same. The basis of their case is that for long years Shri Biju Patnaik, Shri Biren Mitra, Shri Nilamoni Routray and some others had a regular plan to capture the Government machinery in order to utilise the same for their own purposes. After becoming an M.L.A. in 1952, Shri Biju Patnaik showed great restlessness to develop industry for himself. Dr. Harekrushna Mahtab helped him while he was Chief Minister, Orissa, and Industry Minister at the Centre from 1950 to 1952. After coming to Legislature, Shri Biju Patnaik, Shri Biren Mitra and Shri Nilamoni Routray wanted to control politics for their own purposes and as Dr. Mahtab was not agreeable to the same, they started conspiracy against him to oust him from politics. After he became Chief Minister, Shri Biju Patnaik openly advocated financial gains through politics. It is unnecessary to give details of their affidavits as in other respects they contain averment as given in the affidavit of opposite party No. 4. From the affidavits of opposite parties 8 and 9, it is clear that Shri Santosh Kumar Sahu was not a member of Congress before 1961. Shri Biju Patnaik and Shri Biren Mitra gathered round themselves some people like Shri Santosh Kumar Sahu who were never Congressmen. They gave Congress tickets to a group of unscrupulous people. Shri Santosh Kumar Sahu and Shri P.V. Jagannath Rao are such persons. After they became Deputy Minister and Minister, they indulged in corruption and specific charges have been supplied. 7. They gave Congress tickets to a group of unscrupulous people. Shri Santosh Kumar Sahu and Shri P.V. Jagannath Rao are such persons. After they became Deputy Minister and Minister, they indulged in corruption and specific charges have been supplied. 7. The substance of the affidavit of Shri Biju Patnaik (the intervener) is as follows: He denies the fact that Shri Biren Mitra, Shri Nilamoni Routray and himself wanted to capture the Government machinery to utilise the same for their own purposes. The "true fact is that Dr. Harekrushna Mahtab utilised these three persons for his continuance as the Chief Minister of Orissa. Dr. Mahtab was constantly manoeuvreing to remain in power as Chief Minister for all time to come and in the process was misleading and misguiding the aforesaid persons, Shri D. Sahu and others to create dissension in the Congress party by divide and rule policy. These persons were utilised by Dr. Mahtab to revolt against Shri Nabakrushna Choudhury. Dr. Mahtab invited some of the aforesaid persons with a view to pushing out Shri Radhanath Rath, Editor of Samaj, from the field of journalism. When these persons discovered his real intention, they broke away from him and the break took place on February 29,1960. The Coalition Government formed in 1959 did not successfully work out in their joint programme, and accordingly the Congress Legislative Party decided that Congress should break away from the coalition. Thereafter there was mid-term election. Dr. Mahtab did not stand as a candidate for the Assembly and tried to sabotage the Congress election prospects from within. Despite it, however, the Congress secured 80 out of 140 seats in the mid-term election. As early as 1960, Dr. Mahtab started his campaign of vilification against the intervener and his colleagues. In 1963, the members of the Opposition raised certain controversy in the Assembly itself regarding the business transaction of Orissa Agents of which Mrs. Mitra was the proprietress. The matter was entrusted to Shri R.N. Singh Deo, Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, for investigation. Though initially he took up the responsibility, ultimately he stated that the investigation through the Public Accounts Committee would not satisfy the public mind that justice had been done and that a Commission of Inquiry should be set up to inquire into the allegations against Shri Biren Mitra and himself. A memorandum was submitted to the President of India in 1964. A memorandum was submitted to the President of India in 1964. The intervener requested the then Prime Minister and Home Minister of India to investigate into the whole matter publicly by their own agency, preferably through a Supreme Court or a High Court Judge. The Government of India, however, decided to investigate through the C.B.I. and appointed a Sub Committee consisting of Shri Gulzarilal Nanda (Home Minister), Shri Y.V. Chavan (Defence Minister), Shri T.T. Krishnamachari (Finance Minister), Sardar Swaran Singh (Foreign Minister), Shri A.K. Sen (Law Minister) and Shri M.C. Chagla (Education Minister). The Sub-Committee carried out a detailed and thorough probe into the charges preferred by the Opposition and came to the finding that in any of the transactions, referred to in the charges, opposite party-10 (intervener) had made no pecuniary benefits or personal gains. Despite this, Dr. Mahtab, Shri R.N. Singh Den and persons belonging to their group had vitiated the atmosphere of the State by making wild and baseless charges against the intervener that he had swindled the State exchequer by fantastic figures. When those wild and baseless charges were published in some national dailies, the intervener filed a suit against the Indian Express group of papers in the Calcutta High Court. In spite of this case, which deals with almost all the charges ought to be bandied about now, the intervener had not at any time resisted the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry. The intervener states that he is anxious that all these, wild charges and rumours must be settled for all time to come at a judicial level so that the mischievous roumurs be set at rest. The intervener denies the assertion that he was asked to resign from the Chairmanship of the State Planning Board by the Prime Minister Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri. The intervener also denies the allegations of Shri R.N. Singh Deo in paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 17 of his affidavit. He did not try to use the Government machinery for his own purpose. 8. Mr. Narasaraju advanced the following contentions: (i) To confer jurisdiction u/s 3 of the Act, the Government should form an opinion as to the necessity for an inquiry into definite matters of public importance. He did not try to use the Government machinery for his own purpose. 8. Mr. Narasaraju advanced the following contentions: (i) To confer jurisdiction u/s 3 of the Act, the Government should form an opinion as to the necessity for an inquiry into definite matters of public importance. The materials on record establish that Government did not apply their mind or form any opinion with reference to any material after the Government assumed office on March 8, 1967. The Notification was issued in pursuance of the decision already taken before election was held and is liable to be quashed. (ii)(a) The Governor carried on the administration with the aid of Council of Ministers and decisions taken by the Minister in charge of the portfolio or by the Cabinet collectively, in regard to matters of administration or policies of the Government or 'measures to be adopted in public interest, cannot be inquired into by any Court or by any administrative authority or successor Government; (b) The Commission of Inquiry is only a fact-finding body. On the report of the Commission, Government will have to take a decision as to any administrative or judicial action. It necessarily implies that there can be no defeating the provisions of the Constitution by appointment of a Commission of Inquiry against an administrative action. (c) The provisions of the Constitution do not, however, impose a ban on the jurisdiction of the Court to have an inquiry into allegations of corruption or bribery or any other act or omission which constitutes criminal offence or creates a liability (sic). If any act of the Government results in a contract and contractual liability, it can be decided only by a Court. Unless there be definite and specific allegations of corruption or bribery or misconduct, which will bring it within the purview of Penal Code or under the Law of Torts, the Commission of Inquiry can not be set up; (iii) The definition of appropriate Government in Section 2 of the Act shows that the State Government cannot appoint a Commission to make an inquiry in any matter relatable to any of the Entries enumerated in List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Unless specific instances of corruption, fraud and misappropriation etc. are given in the Notification, it is not possible to say whether the allegations come within the entries in List I or Lists II and III. Unless specific instances of corruption, fraud and misappropriation etc. are given in the Notification, it is not possible to say whether the allegations come within the entries in List I or Lists II and III. The Commission has no jurisdiction to inquire into the subject-matter of the Notification on general and vague allegations without any particulars ; (iv) The Court has undoubted jurisdiction to decide whether there are facts, circumstances and material on which a prime facie opinion can be formed by any reasonable person. No materials have been brought before the Court which constituted the basis of the opinion. Though the formation of the opinion is a subjective process, the Court is competent to see if there is any connation between the materials and the opinion; (v) The Court is competent to inquire whether the opinion formed was vitiated by mala fides. There may be mala fides when the mind is not applied to the facts or the wind is influenced by irrelevant considerations. Such mala fides would vitiate the opinion even though the person forming the opinion was not based and acted honestly. The materials have not been specified in the Notification and in the counter affidavits filed. The fact that in pursuance of the directions given by the Commission, a list of charges has been given, is irrelevant; (vi) The matters in respect of which inquiry is to be made by the Commission must be definite. A Notification mentioning a host of persons and a host of allegations without indicating the co. relation between them, prima facie indicates that Government did not apply their mind as to what particular facts refer to which person; (vii) Unless specific allegations are mentioned with respect to each individual separately, the Notification would be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution; and (viii) The Executive Government functioning under the Commission of Inquiry Act cannot appoint a Commission with respect to matters which are subjudice or already decided. 9. Mr. Sahu adopted an the contentions of Mr. Narasaraju. 9. Mr. Sahu adopted an the contentions of Mr. Narasaraju. Over and above, he advanced two other contentions, namely: (1) the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry by the present ministry is the outcome of bad faith and mala fides; and (2) the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry by the State Government is without jurisdiction after the Central Government and the former State Government rejected the demand for appointment of a Commission of Inquiry in relation to the same matters. Many of the contentions urged by the learned Advocates overlap and would be dealt with in due course. 10. In order to appreciate the contentions, it would be profitable to extract the entire Notification and the relevant portions of Sections 2 and 3 of the Act. "HOME DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION The 26th October 1967 No. 813.EC.- Whereas pursuant to the mid-term general election of the State Legislative Assembly in 1961, Councils of Ministers headed by Shri Biju Patnaik, Shri Biren Mitra and Shri Sadasiva Tripathy were formed in the State during different times during the period from the 23rd June 1961 till the 8th March 1967 and Shri Biju Patnaik, after laying down his office as Chief Minister, declared himself to be the Chairman, Planning Board and continued to function as Chairman, Planning Board during the period from the 4th October, 1963 to the 29th January 1965, during the Chief Ministership of Shri Biren Mitra; AND WHEREAS during the tenure of office of,the aforesaid, persons as Chief Ministers there were various allegations against the conduct of the aforesaid persons and some of the Ministers and Deputy Ministers of the State of Orissa, as specified in the Schedule hereto, by politicians, the general public and others, and the allegations apart from being put forward from public platforms by private persons and otherwise, have been the subject-matter of active agitation all through in the State Legislature and in the Parliament and some of such allegations were of such a nature that an enquiry was conducted thereon by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Central Cabinet also held deliberations over the same; AND WHERE AS on an active and careful consideration of all such allegations by the Government of Orissa, it appears to them: THAT DURING THE AFORESAID PERIOD I.E., FROM THE 23RD JUNE 1961 TO THE 8TH MARCH 1967. THE SAID PERSONS AS NAMED IN THE SCHEDULE: (1) committed various acts of misconduct, misappropriation, fraud, negligence, favouritism, nepotism, illegalities, irregularities, improprieties and abuse of their power in the matters of administration 01 the State: (2) abused their official positions for securing pecuniary and other benefits for themselves, members of their families, their relations, their friends, their partymen (Congressmen) and others in whom they were interested, from out of the funds of the State exchequer and otherwise to the detriment of the interests of the State; (3) committed breach of trust and acts of impropriety with respect to the properties and assets of the State with a view to further the interests of their party organisation, i.e., the Congress ; (4) entered into contracts and other monetary transactions for the supply of machinery tools, equipment and execution of works, themselves or permitted their family members, relations, friends, partymen and others to enter into such contracts and transactions with the Government of Orissa, with different Departments of the Government of Orissa, with Corporations, Local Bodies, Statutory Bodies and with other Bodies with which Government of Orissa have or had interest, control or concern in utter disregard of the interests of the State and in breach of the trust imposed on them by virtue of their Constitutional positions; (5) resorted to misuse of power, interfered in the processes of elections and administration of Local Bodies not only to help their friends, favourites and party men but also at times for their own personal benefits; (6) acquired directly properties of the State either for themselves or for the benefit of the members of their families or relations or others in whom they were interested; (7) advanced money and loans by way of favouritism out of the State exchequer in favour of themselves, members of their families, their relations and other persons in whom they were interested; (8) permitted wastage, misuse, misutilisation and misappropriation of the funds of the State in several ways to the deteriment of the interests of the State in utter disregard of the canons of financial propriety and established rules and procedure from which It presumption of personal gains for themselves or for persons as aforesaid directly or indirectly arises; (9) caused wastage, misuse, misutilisation, misappropriation, illegal or irregular use of the funds of the State through contracts or other monetary transactions entered into by the Government without following the rules of law or the established procedure ; (10) by way of favouritism and nepotism caused maladministration in matters of public services, namely, in the matter of appointments, transfers, promotions and dealing with corrupt Officers; (11) interfered with the administration of law and tried to pervert the course of justice by helping offenders to escape law; (12) caused to the State Government huge financial loss which has given rise to a great economic crisis, serious retardation in the progress of trade, industry and commerce, agricultural output, serious problems of unemployment and has also vitiated the moral and general character of the people; (13) acted in several cases against constitutional proprieties, public policies and proper, social and political conduct; (14) amassed wealth themselves, through members of their family, relations and other persons or permitted the members of their family, relations and other persons to amass wealth and their assets during the aforesaid period have increased disproportionate to the known sources of their income, by abuse of their constitutional positions. Under such circumstances the people in general and the Government have expressed a desire that the matters aforesaid regarding the aforesaid persons should be enquired into through a Commission of Inquiry so that facts may be found which alone will facilitate rectification and prevention of recurrence of such lapses and securing the ends of justice and establishing a moral public order in future. Under such circumstances, the Government of the State of Orissa are of the opinion that it is necessary to appoint a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose to making a full inquiry into the aforesaid matters which are of definite public importance. NOW, THEREFORE, the State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Commission of Inquiries Act, 60 of 1952 hereby appoint a Commission of Inquiry consisting of Shri Justice H.R. Khanna of the Delhi High Court to - inquire into and report on and in respect of: WHETHER THE PERSONS MENTIONED IN THE SCHEDULE, DURING THE AFORESAID PERIOD: (1) committed various acts of malfeasance, misfeasance, misappropriation, fraud, negligence, favoritism, nepotism, illegalities, irregularities improprieties and abuse of their power in matters of administration of the state in different cases? (2) abused their official positions for securing pecuniary-and other benefits for themselves, the members of their families, their relations, their friends and their partymen (Congressmen) and others in whom they were interested, from out of the funds of the State exchequer and otherwise to the detriment of the interests of the State? (3) committed breach of trust and acts of impropriety with respect to the properties and assets of the State with a view to further the interests of their party organisation, i.e., the Congress? (4) entered into contracts and other monetary transactions for the supply of machinery, stores, equipment and execution of works or permitted their family members, relations, friends and others in whom they were interested, with the Government of Orissa in utter disregard of the law, rules and administrative procedure relating thereto and in breach of the confidence reposed on them, by virtue of their constitutional position? (5) resorted to misuse of power, interfered in the precess of election and administration of local bodies not only to help their friends, favourites and partymen, but also at times for their own personal benefit? (5) resorted to misuse of power, interfered in the precess of election and administration of local bodies not only to help their friends, favourites and partymen, but also at times for their own personal benefit? (6) acquired directly properties of the State either for themselves or for the benefit of members of their families relations or other persons in whom and organisations in which they were interested? (7) advanced money and loans in favour of themselves, members of their families, their relations and other persons in whom they were interested out of the State exchequer? (8) permitted wastage, misuse and expenditure in various ways to the detriment of the interests of the State without following the established rules of procedure from which the presumption of personal gains for themselves directly or indirectly would arise? (9) by way of favouritism and nepotism have caused maladministration in matters-of public Services, namely, appointments, transferes, promotions and dealing with corrupt Officers? (10) interfered in the administration of law and tried to pervert the course of justice by helping offenders to escape law? (11) by their aforesaid conduct have put the State Government to huge financial loss which has resulted in a financial crisis for the State? (12) by their aforesaid conduct have hampered the entire industrial development in the State? (13) by their aforesaid conduct have given rise to serious problems of unemployment,? (14) by their aforesaid conduct have spread corruption in the Government machinery and have polluted the general public morale in the State and have also brought about a general demoralisation of the political, social, economic and moral aspects of the Society? (15) by their aforesaid conduct have put the State to financial loss which has developed into a great economic crisis and has resulted in rapid retardation of the progress of trade, industry and commerce, a deplorable fall in the agricultural output, spread of corruption in all wings of administration and a general breakdown in the morale and character of the people of the State? The Commission of Inquiry may also perform such other functions as are necessary or incidental to the inquiry. The Commission shall inquire into the detailed particulars pertaining to the aforesaid matters along with such other incidental and ancillary matters there to that shall be placed before them by the State Government. The Commission shall inquire into the financial implications of the aforesaid matters. The Commission shall inquire into the detailed particulars pertaining to the aforesaid matters along with such other incidental and ancillary matters there to that shall be placed before them by the State Government. The Commission shall inquire into the financial implications of the aforesaid matters. The Commission shall make its report to the State Government on or before 30th April 1968. AND WHEREAS the State Government are of opinion that having regard to the nature of the inquiry to be made and other circumstances of the case; all the provisions of Sub-section (2), Sub-section (3), Sub-section (4), Sub-section (5) and Sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 shall be made applicable to the said Commission, the State Government hereby directs that all the said provisions shall apply to the said Commission. The Commission shall have its head quarters at Bhubaneswar and may also visit such places as may be necessary in furtherance of the Inquiry. By order of the Governor B.B. Rath Additional Secretary to Government. SCHEDULE Table missing File No . OR680125 The relevant portions of Sections 2 and 3 of the Act run thus: 2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires: (a) "appropriate Government" means: (i) the Central Government, in relation to a Commission appointed by it to make an inquiry into any matter relatable to any of the entries enumerated in List I or List II or List III in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution; and (ii) the State Government in relation to a Commission appointed by it to make an inquiry into any matter relatable to any of the entries enumerated in List II or List III in the Seventh, Schedule to the Constitution.; 3. (1) The appropriate Government may, if it is of opinion that it is necessary so to do, and shall, if a resolution in this behalf is passed by the House of the People or, as the case may be, the Legislative Assembly of the State, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making an inquiry into any definite matter of public importance and performing such functions and within such time as may be specified in the notification, and the Commission so appointed shall make the inquiry and perform the functions accordingly: Provided that where any such Commission has been appointed to inquire into any matter: (a) by the Central Government, no State Government shall, except with the approval of the Central Government, appoint another Commission to inquire into the same matter for so long as the Commission appointed by the Central Government is functioning; (b) by a State Government, the Central Government shall not appoint another Commission to inquire into the same matter for so long as the Commission appointed by the State Government is functioning, unless the Central Government is of opinion that the scope of the inquire should be extended two or more States. ... ... ... 11. We propose to examine first whether the matters referred to in the Notification are matters of public importance. A similar contention was urged and repelled in State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad. In paragraph 10, their Lordship observed that public men failing in their duty should be called upon to face the consequences and that it was certainly a matter of public importances that lapses on the part of the Ministers should be exposed. The cleanliness in public life in which the public are vitally in interested, is a matter of public importance. In view of the aforesaid observations the matters referred to in the Notification are matters of public importance. This position is not seriously disputed. 12. The next question is whether thee matters are definite. It is said that the items of charges in the Notification are of a general nature and that in the absence of the instances of the transactions, with reference to which allegations of malfeasance, misfeasance, and misappropriation etc. have been made, the matters are not definite. "Definite" means determinate, distinct, precise and not vague. It is said that the items of charges in the Notification are of a general nature and that in the absence of the instances of the transactions, with reference to which allegations of malfeasance, misfeasance, and misappropriation etc. have been made, the matters are not definite. "Definite" means determinate, distinct, precise and not vague. In paragraphs 11 and 13 in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Bakshi Gulom Mohommad, their Lordships obsprved thus: Para 11- An inquiry usually is into a question. That question may arise on allegations made...Allegations may very well raise questions of great public importance. Suppose it is alleged that people in a city are suffering from ill health and that is due to the contaminated water supplied by the city administration. It cannot be said that these allegations about the existence of poor health and its causes are not matters of grave public importance. They would be so even if it was found that the people's health was not poor and the water was not contaminated. It can not also be said that allegations can never be definite. They can be as definite as any existing concrete matter. It must depend on what the allegation is. Para 13 A Court can decide whether the matters to be inquired into are definite matters of public importance. 'Definite' in this connection means something which is not vague.... In most cases, the acts are identifiable from the particulars given in the second schedule in respect of them. Further, it is obvious that they had to be identified at the hearing and could not be proved nor any notice taken of them unless that was done... In most of the allegations it had been expressly stated that the act was done by the misuse of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad's official position and by his permitting others to exploit that-it is this which made the matters, matters of public importance-and it was for greater safety that the note was appended so that no doubt was left as to the gravamen of the charge in each of the allegations made. Thus in order to be definite all that is necessary is that the matters must not be vague. If general allegations are not vague, they are definite matters. Doubtless where a particular instance is given, the matter becomes definite; but the converse is not true. Thus in order to be definite all that is necessary is that the matters must not be vague. If general allegations are not vague, they are definite matters. Doubtless where a particular instance is given, the matter becomes definite; but the converse is not true. Absence of particulars or instances would nonetheless make matters definite. That would depend upon the nature of the general allegations depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the Schedule to the Notification, the periods during which fifteen persons worked in different official capacities have been mentioned. Various acts, referred to in Items 1 to 15 alleged to have been committed by each of the 15 persons during the respective period, are definite matters. There is nothing vague about it. To illustrate, it has been said in the Notification that during the aforesaid period, that is, from 23-6-1961 to 8-3-1967, the said persons as named in the Schedule, caused to the State Government huge financial loss which has given rise to a great economic crisis, serious retaroation in the progress of trade, industry and commerce, agricultural output, serious problems of unemployment and has also vitiated the moral and general character of the people-(vide item 12), The allegations in an the cases are no doubt in a general way, but yet they are definite. The inquiry would be confined to the period from June, 1961 till 8.3.1967. Different Ministers and Deputy Ministers had responsibility during the particular period in which he or they acted. The Commission of Inquiry would probe into the fact and ascertain the individual and collective responsibility of the persona named in the Schedule during the period specified against each. The aforesaid analysis gets full support from Ram Krishna Dalmia Vs. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Others. The allegations made therein were all general. The Commission in that case was to inquire into and report III respect of the administrations of the affairs of the companies specified in the Schedule thereto. Item 2 was that the administration of the affairs of such other companies and firms as the Commission may, during the course of its inquiry, find to be companies or firms connected with the companies referred to in the Schedule and whose affairs ought to be investigated and inquired into in connection with or arising out of the inquiry into the affairs of the companies specified in the Schedule. The contention that the conduct of individual person or company cannot be possibly a matter of public importance and far less a definite matter of that kind was rejected. Their Lordships gave various illustrations indicating what are definite matters of public importance. They said that wide spread floods, famine and pestilence; the unsocial conduct of villagers in cutting the bundhs by taking water to their fields during the dry season likely to cause flood during rainy season; widespread dacoity in particular parts of the country the country, the conduct, activities and modus opprandi of the dacoits and thugs notorious for their cruel depredations can all be regarded as definite matters of public importance. Their Lordships concluded thus: Quite conceivably the conduct of an individual person or company or a group of individual persons or companies may assume such a dangerous proportion and may so prejudicially affect or threaten to affect the public well-being as to make such conduct a definite matter of public importance urgently calling for a full inquiry. On the aforesaid tests, the matters referred to in the Notification are definite matters of public importance. The matters are definite inasmuch as the conduct and responsibility of all the persons referred to in the Schedule during the particular periods they worked as public function-arises are definite matters. Corruption, nepotism and misappropriation of public funds during a particular period are clearly definite matters of public importance. In the Notification, it was clearly stated that the Commission shall inquire into the detailed particulars pertaining to the aforesaid matters along with such other incidental and ancillary matters thereto that shall be placed before them by the State Government. This shows that before the issue of the Notification, the particulars of the allegations were before the State Government and they gave a notice both to the Commission as well as to the persons named in the Schedule that the particulars would be supplied before the Commission. That a matter cannot be definite unless specific instances are given in the Notification is urged by Mr. Narasaraju with reference to the definition of "appropriate Government" in Section 2 of the Act. By virtue of the definition, the State Government cannot appoint a Commission to make an inquiry into any matter relateble to any of the Entries enumerated in List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Narasaraju with reference to the definition of "appropriate Government" in Section 2 of the Act. By virtue of the definition, the State Government cannot appoint a Commission to make an inquiry into any matter relateble to any of the Entries enumerated in List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. It is urged that in the absence of specific instances, it is not possible to say if any of the items in items in the Notification relates to an entry in List I, II or III and whether the State Government have the jurisdiction to appoint the Commission. The argument though attractive has no substance in the facts and circumstances of this case. The various acts referred to in the Notification are all in relation to the State Exchequer and the affairs of the State of Orissa done by the 15 public functionaries during their period of office. Ex facie none of the 15 hems comes within the purview of the entries in List I. As has already been said, the general allegations made in the Notification are definite matters of public importance relating to the affairs of the State of Orissa and its exchequer. The State Government have jurisdiction to appoint the Commission to inquire into such matters. 13. The next contention of Mr. Narasaraju is that the State Government did not apply its mind to any definite matters of public importance, after the Government assumed office on 8th March 1967 and that the Notification was issued in pursuance of a decision already taken before the election was held and as such the Notification is to be struck down as the essential condition for the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 3 of the Act is lacking. The learned Advocate-General, on the other hand, contends that the Legislature has delegated the function of determining both the necessity of an inquiry and the existence of definite matters of public importance to the subjective satisfaction of the Government. It is not open to the Court to examine the sufficiency of the matters, though it has got the power of judicial review whether a prima facie case is made out regarding the existence of the matters. According to him the Court is merely to examine the allegations made and see whether they are definite matters of public importance. Reliance is placed by Mr. Narasaraju on The Barium Chemicals Ltd. and Another Vs. According to him the Court is merely to examine the allegations made and see whether they are definite matters of public importance. Reliance is placed by Mr. Narasaraju on The Barium Chemicals Ltd. and Another Vs. The Company Law Board and Others. The majority view was expressed by Shelat, J. thus: Though an order passed in exercise of power under a statute cannot be challenged on the ground of propriety or sufficiency, it is liable to be quashed on the ground of mala fides dishonesty or corrupt purpose. Even if it is passed in good faith and with the best of intention to further the purpose of the legislation which confers the power, since the Authority has to act in accordance with and within the limits of that legislation, its order can also be challenged if it is beyond those limits or is passed on grounds extraneous to the legislation or if there are no grounds at all for passing it or if the grounds are such that no one can reasonably arrive at the opinion or satisfaction requisite under the legislation. In anyone of these situations it can wen be said that the authority did not honestly form its opinion or that in forming it, did not apply its mind to the relevant facts. The learned. Advocate-General says that the principle of this case has no application to the formation of opinion u/s 3 of the Act and that it should be confined to particular classes of statutes like Companies Act. We are unable to agree. The conditions for arriving at subjective satisfaction may vary in different statutes but the principle enunciated therein has full application to this case. The question was directly dealt with in Ram Krishna Dalmia Vs. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Others. In paragraph 16, their Lordships observed thus: ...it cannot be overlooked that Parliament having left the selective application of the Act to the discretion of the appropriate Government, the latter must of necessity take its decision on the materials available to it and the opinion it forms thereon. The appropriate Government cannot in such matters be expected to sit down and bold a judicial inquiry into the truth of the materials brought before it and examine the informants on oath in the presence of the parties who are or may be likely to be affected by its decision. The appropriate Government cannot in such matters be expected to sit down and bold a judicial inquiry into the truth of the materials brought before it and examine the informants on oath in the presence of the parties who are or may be likely to be affected by its decision. 'In matters of this kind the appropriate Government has of necessity to act upon the information available to it. It is the best judge of the reliability of its source of information and if it acts in good faith on the materials brought to its notice and honestly comes to the conclusion that the act and conduct of the Petitioners and the affairs of their' companies constitute a definite matter of public importance calling for an inquiry with a view to devise measures for preventing the recurrence of such evil, this Court not being in possession of all the facts will, we apprehend, be slow to adjudge the executive action to be bad and illegal We are not unmindful of the fact that a very wide discretionary power has been conferred on the Government and, indeed, the contemplation that such wide powers in the hands of the executive may in some cases be misused or abused and turned into an engine of oppression has caused considerable anxiety in our mind. Nevertheless, the bare possibility that the powers may be misused or abused cannot per se induce the Court to deny the existence of the powers. It cannot be overlooked that Parliament has confided this discretion, not to any petty official hut to the appropriate Government itself to take action in conformity with the policy and principle laid down in the Act... "a discretionary power is not necessarily a discriminatory power and that abuse of power is not to be easily assumed where the discretion is vested in the Government and not in a minor official. We feel sure, however, that if this law is administered by the Government" with an evil eye and an unequal hand" or for an oblique or unworthy purpose the arms of the Court will be long enough to reach it and to strike down such abuse with a heavy hand. Thus the subjective satisfaction would not empower the State Government to appoint a Commission, in the absence of definite matters of public importance. Thus the subjective satisfaction would not empower the State Government to appoint a Commission, in the absence of definite matters of public importance. The Court has got the power of judicial review within a very narrow compass as to whether there are materials to prove at least prima facie the existence of definite matters of public importance. If a tentative conclusion can he arrived at on the allegations made, it is not open to the Court to go further and quash the Notification on the ground of inefficiency or impropriety of those materials. When the existence of definite matters of public importance is challenged, mere assertion on the part of the State Government that those matters existed would not be enough. Some clue must be furnished which would lead to the conclusion as to their existence. Mr. Narasaraju places reliance on the following facts to show that the opinion formed by the Government was not on the result of examination of materials between March 8, 1967 and March 21, 1967 when the Governor's address was read out but a Commission of Inquiry was constituted as had been decided upon prior to the election. (i) The Biju Patnaik ministry was formed in June 1961. The suggestion of the contesting opposite parties is that the dissolution of the Coalition Government of 1959-1961 was the result of adverse attitude of Shri Biju Patnaik and his supporters. (ii) In 1962, there was a debate in the Legislature where allegations of corruption against Biju Patnaik's ministry were made and discussed. (iii) In August 1963, Shri R..N. Singh Deo, as the Leader of the Opposition, wanted a two-day debate in regard to the allegations of misconduct and impropriety against the Chief Minister Shri Biju Patnaik and the Deputy Chief Minister Shri Biren Mitra. Shri Singh Deo, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, declined to investigate into the matters on the ground that as there was an inquiry into his private property at the instance of the Government, his findings would not be above suspicion and reproach. (iv) When Shri Biju Patnaik did not agree to appoint a Commission of Inquiry in July, 1964, there was a memorandum to the President requesting for the appointment of a Commission. (v) The Central Government did not appoint any Commission of Inquiry but they referred the matter to a Cabinet Sub-Committee. (iv) When Shri Biju Patnaik did not agree to appoint a Commission of Inquiry in July, 1964, there was a memorandum to the President requesting for the appointment of a Commission. (v) The Central Government did not appoint any Commission of Inquiry but they referred the matter to a Cabinet Sub-Committee. (vi) Before the election of February, 1967, the Jana Congress defected from the Congress party and in the joint election manifesto of the Swatantra party and the Jana Congress, there was an item that a Commission of Inquiry should be appointed. (vii) The Ministry was constituted on March 8,1907. The Governor's address on March 23, 1967, expressly mentioned that Government had already decided to appoint a Commission of Inquiry. (viii) The affidavit filed by the Home Secretary that the Notification appointing the Commission was an mentation of the election manifesto. None of these facts, taken separately or collectively, supports the contention that prior to the issue of the Notification the Government did not apply their mind to definite matters of public importance to have the subjective satisfaction u/s 3. The facts enumerated above rather show that there was a demand all through for a period of 3 to 4 years before the Notification for appointment of a Commission of Inquiry. The memorandum to the President in 1964 embodied facts before 1964 and on enquiry of even some facts, the Central Sub-Committee came to the conclusion that certain administrative improprieties had been committed. The enquiry by the Cabinet Sub-Committee was not an open enquiry. The decision of the Cabinet Sub-Committee reinforces the view of the Government that there was a prima facie case for appointment of a Commission. Moreover the enquiry also covers a period subsequent to the memorandum filed in 1964 and of facts and persons not covered by the memorandum. In the memorandum submitted to the President, clear instances were cited and so also in the discussion in and outside the Legislature. The instances and the details of the particulars which have been filed before the Commission of Inquiry by the. State Government have been filed in O.J.C. 396 of 1967 and marked as Annexure I therein. Items 1, 2, 38 and 61 refer to Shri P.V. Jagannath Rao. Items 2, 51, 52 and 64 refer to Shri Santosh Kumar Sahu. The instances and the details of the particulars which have been filed before the Commission of Inquiry by the. State Government have been filed in O.J.C. 396 of 1967 and marked as Annexure I therein. Items 1, 2, 38 and 61 refer to Shri P.V. Jagannath Rao. Items 2, 51, 52 and 64 refer to Shri Santosh Kumar Sahu. Items 1, 2, 5 to 8, 16, 22 to 27, 33 to 40, 45 to 51, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60 to 65 and 67 to 70 refer to Shri Biren Mitra. Items relating to Shri Biren Mitra are abundant. No argument was advanced before us that the items relating to Shri Mitra would not constitute definite matters of public importance. Accordingly we do not propose to go into the details of those items. It was contended before us that the detailed particulars given against Shri P.V. Jagannath Rao and Shri Santosh Kumar Sahu show that the allegations are frivolous and flimsy, and on such materials no Commission of Inquiry should be set up. It is not the function of this Court to go into the merits of the allegations and to see whether they have been established that is the function of the Commission of Inquiry. This Court is only to see whether on the materials presented a prima facie case is made out for the subjective satisfaction of the State Government. It would, therefore, be appropriate at this place to deal with the items against Shri P.V. Jagannath Rao and Shri Santosh Kumar Sahu separately. Details regarding Shri Jagannath Rao Item No. 1 is that Messrs Kalinga Industries Limited is a concern developed by Shri Biju Patnaik. He was the Chairman of the Board of Directors of this concern till he became the Chief Minister of Orissa on June 23, 1961. Shri Rao has large shares in this concern Shri Rao was taken into the Cabinet of Shri Biju Patnaik for the purpose of helping Messrs Kalinga Industries, as narrated in detail under Item No. 1. The charge against Shri Rao is that he h an important shareholder of the concern and is responsible for the heavy loss occasioned to the Government by being in active collusion with Shri Biju Patnaik and Shri Biren Mitra while all of them were Ministers. The charge against Shri Rao is that he h an important shareholder of the concern and is responsible for the heavy loss occasioned to the Government by being in active collusion with Shri Biju Patnaik and Shri Biren Mitra while all of them were Ministers. In an affidavit filed on January 4, 1968, Shri Rao admitted that his father was a shareholder in Messrs Kalinga Industries and the interest of his father devolved upon him after his father's death and this was before 1961. It is thus the admitted position that he has large shares in the Kalinga Industries and is interested therein. It matters little whether he himself purchased the shares or he acquired interest therein after the death of his father. On the allegations made in the particulars supplied to the Commission, it cannot be said that in respect of this charge no prima facie case for inquiry is made out. Item No. 2 relates to certain purchase by the Government of some tubular trusses from Messrs Kalinga Industries in 'which Shri Biju Patnaik has, some interest. The charge against Shri Rao is that to enrich himself he helped in the transactions by acquiescence as a Cabinet Minister. Item No. 38 relates to appointment of Dr. George Patnaik, brother of Shri Biju Patnaik. It is alleged that Shri Rao abused his official position as a Minister of Health to help the brother of Shri Biju Patnaik to have pecuniary benefits at the costs of the State exchequer. The substance of the matter is that Dr. George Patnaik was a part-time Dentist in the Medical College on a monthly honorarium of Rs. 100/- from the year 1942. During the regime of Shri Biren Mitra as the Chief Minister, by getting false reports from the Director of Health and other Government servants, Dr. G. Patnaik was made permanent despite the fact that he was only a part-time servant for about 22 years. He was given the status equivalent to that 'of a Civil Surgeon making false statements that he had foreign qualifications which; in fact, he had not. The charge is that both Shri Biren Mitra and Shri Rao gave undue pecuniary benefits to Dr. G. Patnaik due to his relationship with Shri Biju Patnaik and there by caused heavy loss to Government. The charge is that both Shri Biren Mitra and Shri Rao gave undue pecuniary benefits to Dr. G. Patnaik due to his relationship with Shri Biju Patnaik and there by caused heavy loss to Government. Item No. 61 relates to the interference of Shri Rao in the investigation of the cause of death of one Miss Pilu Bahen Sidhwa. She came from Bombay to do volunteer service in the All India Congress Session at Bhubaneswar. She was taken in a Government jeep to Khandagiri for sight seeing. She was found dead near Khandagiri. Her body was taken to the General Hospital,Cuttack. The Health Minister Shri Rao was present. Only inquest was made but no post mortem examination. Shri Rao was previously a Civil Surgeon in the State service and he did not ask for post mortem examination with a view to facilitating suppression of the cause of death. The allegation was that death was due to indecent assault on her. The charge is that truth of the death of Miss Pilu Bahen did not come to light due to interference by the. Ministers amongst whom Sri Rao was one. The aforesaid instances and particulars presented to the Commission of Inquiry are definite matters of public importance. No reasonable man can say that a prima facie case has not been made out for sending these matters to the Commission of Inquiry for a probe to ascertain the real truth. Details regarding Shri Santosh Kumar Sahu. The charge in respect of Shri Sahu in item 2 is that in the matter of purchase of tubular -trusses from Messrs Kalinga Industries by the Government, he colluded as a Deputy Minister in charge of the department which made the purchases to help Shri Biju Patnaik and Shri Biren Mitra in the matter of impropriety, corruption, misappropriation and breach of trust. Item 51 relates to misfeasance, impropriety and favouritism shown to Shri Chitaranjan Pani, a member of the Congress party, by not causing realisation of mining dues resulting in heavy loss to the State Exchequer Shri Chitaranjan Pani is the brother of Shri Bijoy Kumar Pani, the then President of the Provincial Congress Committee and a supporter of Shri Biren Mitra Ministry. The mine owners of Orissa challenged the procedure of assessment and preferred writ petitions in the High Court and appeals in the Supreme Court which were all dismissed. The mine owners of Orissa challenged the procedure of assessment and preferred writ petitions in the High Court and appeals in the Supreme Court which were all dismissed. After writ petitions were dismissed, Government of Orissa passed orders for realisation of the dues through distress warrants in cases of leases prior to 195 and by certificate procedure as against others. Shri Chitaranjan Pani was in arrears to the tune of Rs. 2,16.771. 66 ps. till 31-12-1960. In August, 1963, the Collector of Sundergarh was on the point of starting a certificate case and was collecting certain information for the purpose. On March 6, 1964, the Deputy Secretary to Government in the Mining and Geology Department directed him not to realise the amount pending consideration of the representation and final orders thereon. The file was endorsed to Shri Santosh Kumar Sahu on March 25, 1966. In order to favour shri Pani so that heavy mining dues would remain outstanding without being collected, he kept the file in his custody for a period of about on year till March 5, 1967 when on the eve of his quitting office he returned the file with the order. "It ought to be finalised quickly". Item 52 relates to grant of a mining lease. It is said that Dr. Sarojini Pradhan was given leases at different times. The application filed by her was defective and could not have come for consideration. To favour her, the rule was relaxed and the lease was granted to her, because she happened to be the family friend and supporter of Shri Biju Patnaik and Shri Nilmoni Routray. Item 64 relates to the impropriety, misappropriation and causing loss to the State Exchequer to the tune of several crores of rupees in Kendu leaves deals. The details have been given in this item and it is not necessary to repeat. Shri Santosh Kumar Sahu was the Deputy Minister in charge of Forests during the relevant period when heavy loss was caused to the State Exchequer. The aforesaid instances against the three Petitioners im portance were clearly indicate that definite matters of public before the Government. The details have been given in this item and it is not necessary to repeat. Shri Santosh Kumar Sahu was the Deputy Minister in charge of Forests during the relevant period when heavy loss was caused to the State Exchequer. The aforesaid instances against the three Petitioners im portance were clearly indicate that definite matters of public before the Government. In the Notification it is stated that during the tenure of office of Shri Biju Patnaik, Shri Biren Mitra and Shri Sadasib Tripathy as Chief Ministers from June 2, (sic) till March 8, 1967, there were various allegations against their own conduct and the conduct of the other persons mentioned in the Schedule, by politicians, by the general public and others, and those allegations were the subject-matter of active agitation, both inside and outside the State Legislature and the Parliament and some of these allegations were inquired into by the C.B.I. and the Central Cabinet. The Notification further states that on active and careful consideration of the aforesaid matters the State Government were of opinion that it was necessary to appoint a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making full inquiry into the aforesaid matters of public importance. That there were such allegations and discussions in and outside the Legislature, submission of a memorandum to the President, investigation by the C.B.I. and examination by the Central Sub-Committee about the three Chief Ministers and some others, is not disputed. The other persons mentioned in the Schedule are alleged to be intimately connected with the acts of malfeasance and misfeasance with the aforesaid Chief Ministers during their tenure of office. The Governor's address announced the future Government policies. The Home Secretary in his affidavits stated that the allegations on these matters were taken into consideration before the aforesaid opinion was formed and on the basis of the examination and consideration of these materials the Government were satisfied about the existence of definite matters of public importance and of the necessity of appointing a Commission of Inquiry. On the aforesaid materials it is difficult to accept the contention that the Commission was appointed merely as a sequel to the joint election manifesto and as a result of the opinion formed by the members of the present Cabinet even prior to their forming the Government. On the aforesaid materials it is difficult to accept the contention that the Commission was appointed merely as a sequel to the joint election manifesto and as a result of the opinion formed by the members of the present Cabinet even prior to their forming the Government. A definite matter of public importance is a question which may arise even on the allegations made-State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad AIR 1957 S.C. 122. Every Successor Government belonging to different political parties and ideologies must necessarily give effect to the programme they lay before the electorate prior to the election. One of the items of the joint election manifesto was the appointment of a Commission. On that clear stand the election was fought out. The Swatantra and Jana Congress parties, which constitute the present Coalition Government, were returned in absolute majority on their 21 point-programme presented to the electorate of which appointment of a Commission was one. It would be fantastic to suggest that the Government had no satisfaction as required u/s 3 of the Act merely because earlier to the election that issue was a part of the programme. For all the reasons discussed above, the contention that there was no subjective satisfaction is devoid of force and is accordingly rejected. 14. The next contention of Mr. Narasaraju has no substance. In Ram Krishna Dalmia Vs. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Others the Act had been held to be intra vires the Constitution. Its constitutionality has also not been assailed before us. Section 3 of the Act itself makes provision for a Government to make inquiry into definite matters of public importance. There are no limitations or exceptions in the section that a successor Government cannot make inquiry into the conduct of any predecessor Government unless they are in the nature of crime or (sic) if the necessary conditions prescribed in the section are fulfilled. This is a complete answer to the aforesaid argument. The Supreme Court rejected this contention substantially advanced in this form in paragraphs 5 and 6 of State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad AIR 1957 S.C. 122. 15. Another argument advanced by Mr. Narasaraju is that unless specific allegations are mentioned with respect to each individual mentioned in the Schedule separately, the Notification is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. We confess our inability to appreciate this argument. 15. Another argument advanced by Mr. Narasaraju is that unless specific allegations are mentioned with respect to each individual mentioned in the Schedule separately, the Notification is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. We confess our inability to appreciate this argument. If the items given in the Notification are definite matters of public importance then they would be examined with reference to each of the individuals separately. It may be that after inquiry by the Commission, different persons may be found to have committed acts with reference to some items and not in respect of 8011. That does not lead to any violation of Article 14. It was urged that the Notification mentioning a host of persons and a host of allegations without indicating the correlation between them prima facie indicates that Government did not apply their mind as to that particular fact referred to which person. For reasons already discussed we have come to the conclusion that the matters referred to for inquiry were definite matters of public importance and the subjective satisfaction of the State Government as required had been established. It might, have been better if definite instances would have been given and the co-relation between the persons mentioned in the Schedule with different items would have been indicated. But in the absence thereof, the Notification is not hit by Article 14. 16. It has been contended by Mr. Narasaraju in connection with the case of Sri Biren Mitra that the items referred to in the Notification were the subject matter of a civil litigation in respect of which a first appeal is pending in the High Court, and there cannot be a further inquiry into the same matter by a Commission. The facts relied upon in this connection may be stated in brief. All the items of charges mentioned in the Notification were included in the memorandum submitted by Shri Nisamoni Khuntia, Secretary, Samyukta Socialist party to the President of India. Shri Janaki Ballav Patnaik, Member, Board of Directors and Board of Trustees, Prajatantra Prachar Samiti and the Editor of the daily news paper "the Eastern Times" printed and published this memorandum with all the allegations made therein in the front page on 2nd August 1964 with bold headlines "Money amassed through corruption". Shri Narendra Chandra Pradhan was the printer and publisher of that paper, Shri Mitra filed two suits C.S. Nos. Shri Narendra Chandra Pradhan was the printer and publisher of that paper, Shri Mitra filed two suits C.S. Nos. 266 and 267 of 1964 against the Prajatantra Prachar Samiti (dft. 1), Shri Janaki Ballav Patnaik (D, 2), Shri Narendra Chandra Pradhan (D. 3) and Shri Nisamoni Khuntia (D. 4). There was an averment in the plaint that there was collusion between Defendants 1 to 4 and other political opponents. Though the political opponents were not named, Shri Mitra, however, intended to refer to the rival political parties including the present Chief Minister. In the plaint, the truth of each and every imputation was denied. Defendants 1 to 3 in that case filed a common written statement saying that the assertions in the memorandum were true. The 4th Defendant filed a Separate written statement to the same effect. The matter was tried by the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack. He held that the publication was ex facie defamatory and libellous. No evidence was given on either side regarding the truth of the imputations in the publication. Holding that the burden of proof rested on the Defendants, the Subordinate Judge decreed the suit for damages for Rs. 200/-. Thus the character and reputation of Shri Mitra is vindicated. Mr. Narasaraju contends that in view of the aforesaid decision of the Subordinate Judge which is pending in first appeal, there cannot be any further inquiry in respect of the same matters which have been decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction. It is said that though Section 11 of the CPC has no application to such a case, the principle of finality of adjudication by the civil Court is based upon the grounds of high public policy and that the Government have no more to form an opinion in respect of matters which are either decided or pending decision. We are not much impressed by this argument. As is already stated, none of the parties in the civil suit adduced evidence. Sri Biren Mitra did not choose to appear as a witness and present himself for cross-examination. The case was decided purely On the basis of burden of proof. We do not express any view whether those two cases were decided rightly or wrongly but the fact remains that there was no factual inquiry into the matter. Sri Biren Mitra did not choose to appear as a witness and present himself for cross-examination. The case was decided purely On the basis of burden of proof. We do not express any view whether those two cases were decided rightly or wrongly but the fact remains that there was no factual inquiry into the matter. The statement that the present inquiry is in relation to the very matters which were the subject matter of inquiry in the civil suit is not wholly correct. In this connexion a question is posted thus: Suppose Shri Mitra files a suit in the regular Court in respect of the very matters in relation to which the Commission is constituted. It is contended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to give a decision on such matters is not ousted and that there cannot be two parallel inquiries into same matters and the inquiry would be made only by the Court and not by the Commission. In our view, an inquiry by the Commission would not be barred. In Ram Krishna Dalmia Vs. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Others it was held that the Commission under the Act is merely to investigate and record its findings and recommendations without having any power to enforce them. The inquiry or report cannot be looked upon as a judicial inquiry in the sense of its being an exercise of judicial function properly so called. The order ultimately passed cannot be enforced proprio vigore. The inquiry and the investigation by the Commission do not therefore amount to usurpation of the function of the Judiciary. The functions of the Court and the Commission are altogether different. The object of appointing a Commission is to make a thorough investigation into facts. Objections are also invited from the general public. The ultimate inquiry and findings are meant to acquaint the Government with the real position. Thereafter the Government might take any administrative or judicial action as is deemed necessary. The fact that ultimately Government might not take any action on the report of the Commission, that in the process of inquiry malfeasance and misfeasance of political rivals had been exposed and that the mischief had been done by the reporting of the charges against the 15 persons in newspapers are wholly irrelevant. The field of activity of the two is entirely different. The field of activity of the two is entirely different. Such a view is not repugnant to the basic concept of rule of law. If the civil suit determines certain matters earlier, the identical matters cannot certainly be canvassed in the Court subsequently. The aforesaid contention, is, however, academic so far as this case is concerned. Here there was no suit against the Government and the Government are not precluded from appointing a Commission of Inquiry. It was further contended that in the pending action of Shri Mitra, Government could make an application to become a party under Order 1, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, and ask for remand of the case for evidence being given. With respect, this suggestion appears to us to be wholly inappropriate. There is no particular reason why a thorough investigation into the matter should not be made and the Government would be called upon to be a party to the suit between private parties under Order 1, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, even if it is assumed that the Chief Minister was aware of the suit. Mr. Narasaraju developed the same argument of usurpation of judicial powers by the Executive on the basis of separation of powers amongst the Executive, Legislature and judiciary. The identical argument was advanced in Dalmia's case and was rejected. Their Lordships said that such an argument was inappropriate in India and they were not called upon in that case to express any opinion on that question (See para ). Mr. Narasaraju contended by way of an illustration as to what would happen if the suit is decided in favour of Shri Mitra by the Supreme Court. In our view, whether the ultimate decision is given by a Munsif or by the Supreme Court, it makes no difference to the legal theory as to the finality of certain adjudication the Commission is not making an adjudication. Its order is not enforceable (sic). It is a fact finding body. It would elaborately inquire and investigate whether the allegations on which the Government had prima, facie satisfaction were true. If the allegations are found true, Government might take such actions, either civil or criminal, as are legally tenable. Its order is not enforceable (sic). It is a fact finding body. It would elaborately inquire and investigate whether the allegations on which the Government had prima, facie satisfaction were true. If the allegations are found true, Government might take such actions, either civil or criminal, as are legally tenable. If the Government ultimately take such action on the report of the Commission, the decision in favour of Shri Mitra in the civil suit, even if ultimately decided in his favour by the Supreme Court, would not stand in the way. Moreover, on the principle enunciated in AIR 1940 105 (Privy Council) the Act vests the Commission with the exclusive jurisdiction to make the inquiry if the necessary conditions exist and such jurisdiction cannot be ousted by institution of a suit even on identical matters. On the aforesaid analysis, we reject the contention that the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the conduct of Shri Mitra is without jurisdiction. 17. It is contended by Mr. Sahu that once the Central Government refused to appoint a Commission of Inquiry on the memorandum presented to the President in 1964, the State Government have no jurisdiction to appoint a Commission to inquire into the same matters. Reliance is placed on the proviso to Section 3(1), Section 3(1), Proviso (a) lays down that where any such Commission has been appointed to inquire into any matter by the Central Government, no State Government shall, except with the approval of the Central Government, appoint another Commission to inquire into the same matter for so long as the Commission appointed by the Central Government is functioning. The language of this provision is plain and does not support the contention of Mr. Sahu. Before the State Government are precluded from appointing another Commission to inquire into the same matter, two essential conditions are necessary. Firstly, the Central Government must have appointed a Commission to inquire into the very matter for which the State Government proposed to appoint a Commission, and secondly, the ban only exists so long as the Commission appointed by the Central Government is functioning and not after it ceases to function. Thus it is open to the State Government to appoint a Commission to inquire into identical matter where the Commission appointed by the Central Government earlier had ceased to function. Thus it is open to the State Government to appoint a Commission to inquire into identical matter where the Commission appointed by the Central Government earlier had ceased to function. It is difficult to accept the argument that the State Government have no power to appoint a Commission where the Central Government have merely refused to appoint one. Section 3(1), Proviso (b) deals with the ban on the Central Government where such a Commission has already been appointed by the State Government and has no application to this case. Mr. Naraaraju rightly did not advance such a wholly untenable argument. We reject the contention of Mr. Sahu. Mr. Sahu next contended that under Article 257(1) of the Constitution of India, the executive power of every State shall be so exercised as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive power of the Union. The executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a State as it would appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose. According to him, the appointment of a Commission by the State Government to inquire into identical matters, in respect of which once the Central Government refused to appoint a Commission, will be contrary to Article 257(1). The appointment of the present Commission does not impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive power of the Union. Section 3 of the Act lays down the principles with reference to which the power would be exercised and where the State Government would not appoint a Commission where the Central Government had already exercised the power. If the State Government does not violate any of the prescriptions made in Section 3, Article 257(1) is no bar to the appointment by the State Government of such a Commission. We find no substance in this contention. 18. Both Mr. Narasaraju and Mr. Sahu had advanced arguments on the question of mala fides. There may be mala fides in three different ways. (i) The existence of a bias in the mind of the authority whose satisfaction is necessary. In other words, a biased mind cannot have a proper judgment. (ii) When the mind of the authority is Dot at all applied to the matters for consideration. (iii) When the mind is applied without bias, but is influenced by extraneous considerations, collateral purpose and ulterior object. In other words, a biased mind cannot have a proper judgment. (ii) When the mind of the authority is Dot at all applied to the matters for consideration. (iii) When the mind is applied without bias, but is influenced by extraneous considerations, collateral purpose and ulterior object. It was contended that the Swatantra and Jana Congress parties constituting the present Government are political rivals of the Congress party. The inquiry has been started not because there are definite matters of public importance on the basis of which the Government is satisfied that there should be an inquiry u/s 3 of the Act, but because they are out to kill their political rivals for all time to come. This is how it is Raid that there is existence of bias and the order appointing the Commission is to be quashed on that ground. It is also contended that the State Government did not, apply its mind to any definite matters of public importance and the appointment of Commission without such application of the mind is mala fide. The last contention is that in the matter of appointment of Commission, the State' Government was influenced by extraneous consideration fl. The fact that on similar facts, no inquiry commission was appointed against different Ministers from 1947 to 1961 is evidence of the fact that irrelevant considerations weighed with the State Government in appointing the Commission. The facts relied upon in support of the aforesaid three different aspects are almost the same. We have already discussed and have come to the conclusion that the State Government had applied its mind to definite matters of public importance and was of opinion that the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry was necessary and that there are materials on records to justify the conclusion that there was prima facie satisfaction. There is no mala fides on this score. As to the existence of bias, there can hardly be any dispute that there is serious political rivalry amongst the three parties-Swatantra, Congress and Jana Congress. There are abundant materials to show that before the formation of the Coalition Government by Congress and Ganatantra parties in, 1959, Sri R.N. Singh Deo, the present Chief Minister used to level trenchant criticisms against the Congress Ministry headed by Dr. Harekrnshna Mahtab and Sri Nabakrmhna Chowdhury at different times. There are abundant materials to show that before the formation of the Coalition Government by Congress and Ganatantra parties in, 1959, Sri R.N. Singh Deo, the present Chief Minister used to level trenchant criticisms against the Congress Ministry headed by Dr. Harekrnshna Mahtab and Sri Nabakrmhna Chowdhury at different times. In one of the speeches before 1959 Sri R. N. "Singh Deo, as Leader of the Opposition said on the floor of the Assembly that the Congresses Government, took recourse to horsetrading, seduction and kidnapping of M.L.AR. He also said that two of the M.L.As. were arrested on illegal grounds to maintain artificial majority in the Congress party in the Assembly. The Jana Congress party has now defected from the Congress. From the letters filed by Shri Biju Patnaik and Dr. Harekrushna Mahtab it is clear that there is mutual vilification, recrimination and attack of the two leaders against the members of the other party. It cannot, therefore, be disputed that there is strong political rivalry amongst the members of different parties. The existence of political rivalry by itself is not enough to hold that the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry is illegal. Identical arguments were rejected in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad AIR 1957 S.C. 122. "Their Lordships observed that if the intention of the Government was mala fide, they could have started any criminal proceedings and ruined the political life of Buxi Ghullam Mohammad. It is to be remembered that in a parliamentary form of Government where governance of the Country by political parties is the, main feature, political rivalry must necessarily exist. Each party has its own ideology. On the basis of their ideology and programme, the election is fought out and after a particular party comes into power, the programme kept before the electorate must be carried into action. 80 merely because there is political rivalry, the appointment of Commission cannot be said to be mala fide. The last argument is that the Commission has been appointed on irrelevant considerations not with a genuine view to know the facts for removal of corruption, but with the collateral purpose and ulterior object of killing opponents and as such it is malafide. Mr. Sahu placed reliance on the following facts in support of the view that extraneous considerations weighed with the Government for appointing the Commission. Mr. Sahu placed reliance on the following facts in support of the view that extraneous considerations weighed with the Government for appointing the Commission. (i) The letter dated 22nd September, 1955 (Annex. 2) filed by opposite party No. 10 given by Dr. Mahtab to Sri Dinabandhu Sahu would show that he was out to take revenge against his rivals particularly against Sri Biju Patnaik, Shri Nilamani Routray and their followers since they refused to support his came. (ii) Though Dr. Harekrushna Mahtab is not in the present Cabinet, he is the leader of the Jana Congress party and is in the position of Super-Chief Minister who controls and guides the policy of the present Cabinet. (iii) Shri R.N. Singh Deo at first agreed to hold a Commission of Inquiry about the allegations against the Ministers from 1947 to 1961, but subsequently he abandoned this by saying that there were no prima facie materials against them. The memorandum to the President of India by Shri Sadasiba Tripathy and others in June,1967 was forwarded by the Home Minister Mr. Chavan to the Chief Minister of Orissa if the allegations made therein would be sent for examination by a Commission of Inquiry. The Chief Minister initially sent it back saying that the matter might be examined by a sitting Supreme Court or High Court Judge to find out a prima facie case, knowing fully well that after the chief Justices Conference, no sitting Judge would take up such work. On receipt of a reply to that; effect from the Home Minister, he said that there was no prima facie case; but he would get the matters examined by a retired Supreme Court or High Court Judge. If the allegations against the Congress Ministers from 1947 to 1961 required examination by a retired Supreme Court or High Court Judge, the same standard should have been applied to the allegations against the 15 persons mentioned in the schedule Thus, two different standards were adopted which is an intrinsic evidence of mala fides. (iv) Shri R.N. Singh Deo was a member of the public Funds Inquiry Committee (See p. 14 of Annexure D) which found Shri Surendranath Pattanaik guilty of misappropriation of public funds, fraudulent action and conspiracy of cheating Government and the public. The Committee recommended to the Government that Shri Pattanaik should be blacklisted for future development work. (iv) Shri R.N. Singh Deo was a member of the public Funds Inquiry Committee (See p. 14 of Annexure D) which found Shri Surendranath Pattanaik guilty of misappropriation of public funds, fraudulent action and conspiracy of cheating Government and the public. The Committee recommended to the Government that Shri Pattanaik should be blacklisted for future development work. With such evidence, an attempt to find out prima facie case is an act of malice meant only to protect a colleague in the present Cabinet. (v) When the Government felt that there was widespread public opinion for holding a Commission of Inquiry against the Ex-Ministers, the subjective satisfaction should have been reached by the Government by taking the consensus of opinion of the voters through a resolution of the Assembly. (vi) When the identical allegations were considered by the Central Cabinet sub-Committee in which eminent people like Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri, Sri M.C. Chagla, Shri A.K. Sen and Shri G.L. Nanda were members, there was nothing for the State Government to be informed of anything more unless the real desire was to have the political death of the opponents by public humiliation. (vii) The allegations were before the Public Accounts Committee of the Orissa Legislative Assembly. There was no necessity for appointment of a Commission on the same allegations unless the ulterior purpose was public humiliation of the Ex-Ministers. (viii) Shri RN. Singh Deo did not conclude the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee. He kept the rumours alive. The appointment of the Commission is to by-pass the Orissa Legislature. (ix) The correspondence between the Home Minister of India and the Chief Minister show that the Central Government was actively considering whether a Commission should be appointed after examination of the materials contained in the memorial (Annex. D). The State Government appointed a Commission hurriedly on the 26th of October, 1967 to forestall the Central Government in appointing such a Commission. (x) Shri Nabakrushna Chowdhury admitted that he was himself guilty of corruption, the details whereof have been given in Annexure D. Dr. Harekrushna Mahtab addressed two letters dated, the 20th of April 1956 and 15th of April, 1956 Annexures 13 & 15 respectively) enumerating various acts of corruption against Shri Nabakrushna Chowdhury and Shri Surendranath Patnaik. Those facts were sufficient for a prima facie satisfaction for the State Government to start an inquiry against those ministers. Harekrushna Mahtab addressed two letters dated, the 20th of April 1956 and 15th of April, 1956 Annexures 13 & 15 respectively) enumerating various acts of corruption against Shri Nabakrushna Chowdhury and Shri Surendranath Patnaik. Those facts were sufficient for a prima facie satisfaction for the State Government to start an inquiry against those ministers. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it is said that there are enough materials for prima facie satisfaction of the Government that there are definite matters of public importance against the Ministers from 1947 to 1961. There were definite allegations of corruption, misappropriation, malfeasance and misfeasance. It was mala fide for the Chief Minister to say that the assistance of a retired Supreme Court or High Court Judge has to be taken to examine the materials to assist the State Government whether there are prima facie grounds for satisfaction. The inquiry against the group of Ministers from 1947 to 1961 is not being taken up as some of the defectors from the Congress are involved and any inquiry against them would result in a break up of the present Cabinet. The inaction on the part of the State Government to take action against them on similar allegations is proof of the fact that the object of appointing the Commission is not to have cleanliness of administration, but to kill political rivals. 19. The long and short of the matter is whether failure to make inquiry against the ministers functioning from 1947 to 1961 is a consideration relevant or germane to the decision of the State Government to appoint a Commission to make the present inquiry. In our view, it is not. This argument suffers from the basic fallacy that whenever Government wants to appoint a. Commission to have an inquiry into any definite matters of public importance u/s 3 of the Act, it would be incumbent upon it to make also inquiry into all analogous and similar matters. There is no justification for such a view. Out of many similar matters, Government might choose to have inquiry in respect of some and not in respect of others. That would depend upon the gravity of the particular matters under consideration. From 1947 to 1959, Congress was in Government. From 195 to (sic) Congress and Ganatantra parties formed the Coalition Government. Out of many similar matters, Government might choose to have inquiry in respect of some and not in respect of others. That would depend upon the gravity of the particular matters under consideration. From 1947 to 1959, Congress was in Government. From 195 to (sic) Congress and Ganatantra parties formed the Coalition Government. It was open to the ministry operating from 1961 to 1967 to have started inquiry into the conduct of ministers from 1947 to 1961. Even though from 1963 onwards the Swatantra and Socialist parties demanded for a Commission of Inquiry against the ministers functioning from 1961 onward, the Congress ministry functioning from 1961 to 1967 did not choose to appoint a Commission to make inquiry into the conduct of ministers from 1947 to 1901. The argument on behalf of the contesting opposite parties that the present demand of Shri Sadasiba Tripathy and others in their memorandum submitted in June 1967 is merely a subterfuge to avert the present Commission cannot be said to be without force. That apart in the forwarding letter to the present Chief Minister accompanying the memorandum, Shri Sadasiba Tripathy made it clear that the allegations being against the Chief Minister and some other ministers, they were not in a position to decide whether there were prima facie materials to conclude that there were deficit matters of public importance. The contesting opposite parties in their counter state that the allegations made against some of the ministers functioning from 1917 to 1961 would be submitted for examination by a Retired Judge for determination if there is a prima facie case for acting u/s 3 of the Act. If the necessary conditions are fulfilled another Commission would be appointed to go into those allegations. The memorial has been submitted to the President of India by Sri Sadasiba Tripathy and others. u/s 3 of the Act, it is open to the Central Government to appoint a Commission to go into those allegations, if it is 80 satisfied. For all these reasons, the failure on the part of the State Government not to appoint a Commission to make inquiry into the allegations made against some ministers from 1947 to 1961 is not a consideration germane to the present inquiry. It is not necessary for a Government to start inquiry into the allegations of corruption covering over a long period. It is not necessary for a Government to start inquiry into the allegations of corruption covering over a long period. The inquiry would be protracted and the very object would be lost. The various facts referred to in connection with this argument do not establish either individually or cumulatively that the decision to make present inquiry has taken irrelevant facts into consideration. The State Government has got full jurisdiction to direct an inquiry if the necessary conditions u/s 3 of the Act are fulfilled. It need not have referred the matter to the Legislature for voting nor it was necessary to have waited for the decision of the Public Accounts Committee. An inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee in its very nature cannot be as thorough as an inquiry by Commission. Similarly, the inquiry by the Cabinet Sub-Committee was of a limited nature. The Cabinet. Sub-Committee was doubtable presided over by very eminent persons. By the very nature of things, they bad to depend on the C.B.I. report and ex parte explanation given by the persons against whom the memorial had been filed. The very persons against, whom the present inquiry has been started constituted the Government during the relevant period. No co. operation in the very nature of things could be expected from them against themselves. We accordingly reject the aforesaid contention that the State Government took into consideration many irrelevant matters or ignored many relevant considerations in reaching the satisfaction and that the decision so reached was mala fide. We have thus come to the conclusion that the appointment of the present Commission is not vitiated by mala fides from the various shades of meaning the word is capable of. The subjective satisfaction of the State Government was not influenced by extraneous considerations, collateral purpose or ulterior object. In a system where governance by political parties is prescribed by the Constitution, any inquiry initiated by any successor Government of a different political complexion is bound to be attacked as being influenced by oblique motives. The true tests in such cases are whether there were any definite matters of public importance and whether the Government in power bad a prima facie subjective satisfaction. The true tests in such cases are whether there were any definite matters of public importance and whether the Government in power bad a prima facie subjective satisfaction. If the essential conditions prescribed u/s 3 of the Act are fulfilled, then the appointment of the Commission cannot he attacked on the ground that prior to the election there was demand for such a Commission an that, His successor Government formed by a different political party initiated the proceeding. Various authorities and text books were cited before us by either side. It is not necessary to refer to them in details. It would he sufficient to refer to the decision of the House of Lords in Franklin and Ors. v. Minister of Town and Country Planning 1948 AC 87. Their Lordships hold that: the Minister of Town and Country Planning hits no judicial or quasi-judicial duty imposed on him so that considerations of bias in the execution of such a duty are irrelevant, the sole question being whether or not he genuinely considered, the report and the objections. The same test applies to the present case. The State Government here have no judicial or quasi judicial duty to reach the subjctive satisfaction. If there are material on the basis of which the State Government reached the satisfaction that there were definite matters of public importance, then the question of bias is irrelevant as the conclusion was genuinely reached on the materials before them. 20. The last contention urged by Mr. Sahu is that the Commission had no jurisdiction to call for further particulars hen it came to the definite conclusion that the items referred to in the Notification were of a general nature. The validity of this argument depends upon the conclusion whether the Notification indicated definite matters of public importance. We have already reached the conclusion that they were definite matters of public importance. If that was so, then it lay within the jurisdiction of the Commission to call for further particulars, details of facts and evidence. All the contentions urged on behalf of the Petitioners fail. The writ applications, are dismissed. No costs. Ray, J. 21. I agree that all the contentions raised must be negatived, and accordingly all the Writ Applications must be dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed