Judgement GOSWAMI, C. J. :- This application under Article 226 of the Constitution, is directed against the notification, dated 20th January, 1973, whereby the Government of Assam has appointed a Commission of Inquiry consisting of Shri Justice M.C. Pathak, Judge of the Gauhati High Court, to inquire into and report by 31st May, 1973 on certain incidents at Kharupetia in Mangaldoi subdivision and at Hojai in Nowgong district. 2. The petitioner is the Secretary of the Hojai Citizens Association, which is an unregistered association, and claims to be interested in the inquiry which has been ordered under the aforesaid notification. The petitioner has entered appearance before the Commission and filed a verified memorandum on behalf of the association. The memorandum is annexed as Annexure B to the petition. The State- Government as well as other parties also filed memoranda before the Commission, which has already framed certain issues and fixed 14th, 15th and 16th May, 1973 for evidence by the State. The petitioner obtained a Rule Nisi on 10th May, 1973 and the Commission was prohibited from proceeding with the work entrusted to it under the impugned notification, pending hearing of the Rule. 3. At the outset, the learned Advocate-General raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has no locus standi to make this application, nor any legal right of his has been affected. Since the petitioner as the Secretary of the Hojai Citizens Association and as a representative of a substantial section of the people, has entered appearance before the Commission and his memorandum on behalf of the association has been accepted by the Commission, we are not prepared to accede to the submission to dismiss this application on the grounds urged by the learned Advocate-General. The preliminary objection of the learned Advocate-General is, therefore, overruled. 4. Mr. The preliminary objection of the learned Advocate-General is, therefore, overruled. 4. Mr. Dutta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, made the following submissions : (1) that Section 3(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, briefly the Act, is discriminatory and should be struck down as violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution; (2) that there are no materials before the Government to form an honest opinion with regard to the necessity of appointing a Commission and as such the order of the Government is invalid in law; (3) that the items mentioned in the schedule to the notification from (a) to (g), and particularly (a), (b) and (c), are not matters of definite public importance and do not empower the Government under the law to appoint a Commission under Section 3 (1) of the Act; (4) that the notification does not indicate any purpose for which the Commission of Inquiry has been constituted and as such a purposeless Commission for a fishing inquiry is not within the scope of Section 3(1) of the Act 5. With regard to the first submission, we may read Section 3 of the Act : "3. With regard to the first submission, we may read Section 3 of the Act : "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 : X X X X (2) X X X X (3) X X X X (4) The appropriate Government shall cause to be laid before the House of the People or, as the case may be, the Legislative Assembly of the State, the report, if any, of the commission on toe inquiry made by the commission under Sub-Section (1) together with a memorandum of the action taken thereon, within a period of six months of the submission of the report by the commission to the appropriate Government." It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that if a resolution is passed by the House of the People or by the State Legislative Assembly, the matters are discussed on the floor of the House by the representatives of the people and the State Government is obliged to appoint a Commission in pursuance of the resolution passed by the Legislature after appropriate discussion; but, on the other hand, Section 3(1) confers an arbitrary and uncanalised power on the State Government to appoint or not to appoint a Commission "if it is of opinion that it is necessary so to do," The power conferred on the State Government without any guidance whatsoever, says Shri Dutta, is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. It is apparent that S. 3(1) has got two parts, the first part relating to exercise of power by the Government in appointing a Commission if it is of opinion that it is necessary so to do for the purpose of making an inquiry into a definite matter of public importance and performing such functions and within such time as may be specified in the order. We do not see any objection to the Government having the discretion to appoint a Commission after taking into consideration circumstances as to its necessity for inquiring into definite matters of public importance. While a resolution of the House is binding on the Government, when Governments view will also be known and the elected members of the Legislature will have opportunity to take part in the discussion for a claim to a Commission of Inquiry with regard to definite matters of public importance, a further consideration by the Government after a resolution has been passed by the Legislature is absolutely unnecessary. The pattern of the parliamentary Government, which is envisaged under the Constitution where no resolution could be passed by the Assembly against the wishes of the Government enjoying the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislature, there is no purpose or relevance to having a further consideration by the Government of matters with regard to the necessity for appointing a Commission of Inquiry under the Act. While this is the legal position under Section 3(1) with regard to the exercise of powers by the Government in pursuance of the resolution of the Legislature, the same would not be the position obviously when the Government has to exercise its own discretion in appointing a Commission of Inquiry under the first part of Section 3(1). Merely because in one case the Government is obliged to appoint a Commission and in the other case the Government has the discretion to appoint or not to appoint a commission, it does not make the section invalid under Article 14 of the Constitution. This is particularly so because there is sufficient guidance in Section 3(1) itself to enable Government in exercising power to appoint a Commission on its own initiative. The fact that only definite matters of public importance can be assigned for the purpose of inquiry under Section 3(1) clearly gives sufficient guidance in the matter. Whether the matters, which are referred to, are definite matters of public importance may, in appropriate cases, be, subject to judicial scrutiny. But that does not make Section 3(1) void under Article. 14 of the Constitution. The opinion that the appropriate Government has to form is, no doubt, a subjective opinion on materials available to Government and that opinion is not subject to judicial scrutiny. But that does not make Section 3(1) void under Article. 14 of the Constitution. The opinion that the appropriate Government has to form is, no doubt, a subjective opinion on materials available to Government and that opinion is not subject to judicial scrutiny. But the necessity to appoint a Commission must be clear from the notification, as is clear from the words used in Section 3(1), viz., "if it is of opinion that it is necessary so to do", and further the matters which are assigned to the Commission of Inquiry must be matters of definite public importance. We are, therefore, unable to accede to the submission that because there are two modes of appointing Commission, namely one when the Government is of opinion that it is necessary to appoint the same, and secondly when there is a resolution of the Legislature to that effect, Section 3(1), of the Act is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The first submission of the learned counsel, therefore, fails. 6. With regard to the second submission, we have now before us the verified memorandum of the petitioner before the Commission, as also the counter-affidavit of the Government (Respondent No. 1). Even the memorandum of the petitioner speaks a volume in favour of the existence of sufficient materials before the Government to form an honest opinion for the purpose of appointing a Commission of inquiry. The memorandum of the petitioner, running into 67 paragraphs, gives his own version of the history and background of the entire agitation leading to disturbances of a large magnitude, and thus on his own showing and on the allegations which he has brought to the notice of the Commission, the petitioner cannot make any legitimate grievance with regard to the bona fide exercise of power by the Government in appointing the Commission of Inquiry. Whether the allegations are true or not, will be a matter for the Commission to decide and not for us. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to even refer to these allegations. The second submission of the learned counsel is, therefore, of no avail. 7. To appreciate the third submission, it will be appropriate to set out the notification of the State Government in ex-tenso : NOTIFICATION The 20th January, 1973. No. PLA. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to even refer to these allegations. The second submission of the learned counsel is, therefore, of no avail. 7. To appreciate the third submission, it will be appropriate to set out the notification of the State Government in ex-tenso : NOTIFICATION The 20th January, 1973. No. PLA. 748/72/27, Whereas the Government of Assam is of opinion that it is necessary to appoint a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making inquiry into definite matters of public importance; Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act (Act 60 of 1952) the Governor of Assam hereby appoints a Commission of Inquiry consisting of Shri Justice M.C. Pathak, Judge of the Gauhati High Court to inquire into and report by May 31, 1973 on the incident which took place at Kharupatia in Mangaldoi subdivision of Darrang District on 5th October, 1972 involving two sections of people which resulted in the death of one school student and at Hojai in Nowgong District on 7th October, 1972, which culminated in the death of a college student and in particular as to : (a) the circumstances under which the students, including deceased Shri Muzzamil Hoque, sustained injuries at Kharupatia and the arrangements made for their prompt treatment and relief; (b) the circumstances under which the deceased student Shri Anil Bora disappeared at Hojai and his dead body recovered subsequently; (c) the preparations made by any section or sections of the people to mount an agitation or to offer resistance thereto in these two places; (d) the precautionary measures taken in these areas to maintain law and order and to protect life and property and their adequacy or otherwise; (e) anticipation and prior information about the possibility of development of a situation leading to the two incidents; (f) the part played by the district or sub-divisional administration concerned in anticipating and adequately dealing with the situations leading to the two incidents; (g) any other matter relevant to the inquiry. Having regard to the nature of the inquiry to be made and other circumstances of these cases, the Governor of Assam also directs that the provisions of Sub-Sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Section 5 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 be made applicable to the Commission. Sd/- B.K. Bhuyan, Special Secretary to the Govt. Having regard to the nature of the inquiry to be made and other circumstances of these cases, the Governor of Assam also directs that the provisions of Sub-Sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Section 5 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 be made applicable to the Commission. Sd/- B.K. Bhuyan, Special Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Political (A) Department." We have examined each of the items mentioned in the notification. While item (g) is a residuary item, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that items (a) to (f) are not matters of definite public importance, particularly in the history and background as presented, by the petitioner himself before the Commission. These particulars mentioned in the notification cannot be viewed in isolation and when a composite view is taken in the background of the picture given by the petitioner, the conclusion is irresistible that these matters are definite matters of public importance and require appropriate examination by an impartial commission. It was faintly argued that there is a police investigation pending in connection with the death of Muzzamil Haque and that of Anil Bora indeed, the petitioners in the connected Civil Rule No. 199 of 1973 are some of the accused in the second case mentioned above. 8. The scope of inquiry by a Commission and that of a criminal trial being entirely different, the pendency of the police investigation in order to track the real offenders for the purpose of trial as accused will not stand as a legal bar to the appointment of Commission with regard to the circumstances mentioned in items (a) and (b) of the notification. There is no prosecution oft anybody before a Commission, nor is there any accused as such to defend himself, and there is no charge of any criminal offence! against anybody. The Commission is required to collect facts fairly to all concerned in the best manner possible and advise the Government with its findings. Under S. 2-B, a Commission, of course, will be required to give a person reasonable opportunity of being heard if it considers necessary to inquire into the conduct of any person or if it is of opinion that the reputation of any person is likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry. This, however, is not the same thing as finding a person guilty of criminal offence. This, however, is not the same thing as finding a person guilty of criminal offence. It will be ultimately for the Government, after perusal of the report of the Commission to decide whether it will accept the findings of the Commission and take appropriate measures as advised or even otherwise. Because police investigation is pending in connection with two death items (a) and (b) do not cease to be matters of definite public importance centering round the two deaths in the circumstances, as alleged by even the petitioner. These deaths cannot be described as merely petty matters of local significance, fit only for a magisterial enquiry or trial in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. Item (c) is of a general nature and cannot at all be enquired into in an appropriate manner when merely trying a criminal charge against certain accused persons. This is undoubtedly a fit subject for a Commission of enquiry which will be untrammelled in exercise of its functions in ascertaining facts relating to all aspects of the matters of inquiry. All interested parties will be able to give their different versions without fear or hesitation and the Commission will be in a position to arrive at its own conclusions regarding the subject-matters referred to it the third submission of the learned counsel is, therefore, of no avail. 10. With regard to the fourth and the last submission of the learned counsel, it is true that the preamble to the notification does not indicate the purpose of making the inquiry. It has only quoted the words of the first part of Section 3(1). Reading, however, the entire notification the purpose of the inquiry is implicit in the order. The purpose, can be definitely spelt out from the items assigned for inquiry. Section 3(1) does not expressly provide for mentioning the purpose in term in notification, although it may always be proper to indicate the same in the preamble. The absence of a recital of the necessity for the inquiry indicating the purpose and object thereof will not per se invalidate the notification if the same can be spelt out from the subject-matters of inquiry. The absence of a recital of the necessity for the inquiry indicating the purpose and object thereof will not per se invalidate the notification if the same can be spelt out from the subject-matters of inquiry. Beside, in this case, the State Government in the counter-affidavit stated as follows : "..........The disturbances which took place in October, 1972 is consequence of the University resolution dated 12-6-1972 were caused by source groups belonging to different section of people. The Government had reason to believe that some such groups took advantage of the emotionally surcharged situation and tried to create chaos and disorder with ulterior motive in a traditionally peaceful and peace loving State. The Government after due consideration came to the firm opinion that it was a definite matter of public importance to be enquired into by a commission of inquiry so that the disruptive forcer can be singled out and the root ensues of occasional communal disturbances can be removed from the body politic of Assam. It is denied that inquiry by a Commission into such matters will generate sectarian interest or flare up communal tension or encourage fissiparous tendencies and disruptive forces jeopardising the integrity of India security of the State and public order. On the other hand the Inquiry Commission is expected to find out the root causes of such communal disturbances and identify the disruptive forces and thereby help the Government to take appropriate measures to root out the causes of such disturbances and this will strengthen the integrity of India and security of the State and remove the causes of such disturbance of public order." We are clearly of the opinion that this appointment, of Commission of Inquiry cannot be as id to be purposeless and the matters resigned, which are matters of definite public importance, to be inquired into by a High Court Judge cannot be said to be a fishing inquiry without any purpose. Besides, Sub-Section (4) of S.3 requires the report of the Commission of Inquiry to be laid by the Government before the State Assembly within a period of six months of the submission of the report, together with a memorandum of the action taken thereon. Besides, Sub-Section (4) of S.3 requires the report of the Commission of Inquiry to be laid by the Government before the State Assembly within a period of six months of the submission of the report, together with a memorandum of the action taken thereon. It is therefore clear that the Commission of Inquiry in such matters cannot be purposeless as, after perusal of the report of the Commission, the Government, has to take some appropriates section on the recommendations or on the findings or on the facts and circumstances collected by the Commission. We, therefore, cannot hold that the Commission of Inquiry in the case will be a starile one. The last submission of the learned counsel also fails. 11. In the result, the application is dismissal. Rule Nisi is discharged. The stay order of 10th May, 1973 stands vacated. We will, however, make no order as to costs. B.N. SARMA, J. :- I agree. Application dismissed.