ORDER Bakthavatsalam, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry to inquire into the clashes between various castes in Thevaram Village and other places in Madurai district in September, 1989 made under G.O.Ms.No. 1547, Public (Law and Order-B) Department, dated 19.9.1989. 2. The petitioner alleges that he is a permanent resident of Chimanur in Madurai district and he belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. He also alleges that there were communal riots in the years 1957, 1968, 1978, 1988 and 1989 and inspite of stringent provisions of Law under the Criminal Procedure Code, and Indian Penal Code, killing of Scheduled Caste people are going on day by day and as such they are forced to defend themselves by all means within their reach. It is further stated in the affidavit that in connection with the recent Bodinaickanur communal clashes, the Government of Tamil Nadu has appointed one Member Inquiry Commission to be headed by Justice Bhaskaran of Madras High Court and that the very appointment of the Commission of Inquiry is not in consonance of the provisions laid down under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. It is further stated that it is not for a definite matter of public importance but only for information to find out the faults specifically with the people belonging to Scheduled Caste people. It is further alleged that the appointment of the said Inquiry Commission is arbitrary and discriminatory, that the term of appointment of the said Inquiry Commission is to single out the Scheduled Caste community and to blame them for the alleged riots, that the order of appointment of the said Inquiry Commission is purely an administrative order of the second respondent and that it is not the Legislative policy of the Government of Tamil Nadu to inquire into the alleged communal clashes between different communities in Madurai district. It is further alleged that when the very term of appointment of the said Inquiry Commission assigns the alleged communal clashes basically with the Adi Dravidas, it does not warrant for a distinct Inquiry Commission. It is also stated that the terms of appointment and the terms of reference of the said Inquiry Commission contradict each other and that the appointment of the said Inquiry Commission is superfluous in law. It is also stated that the terms of appointment and the terms of reference of the said Inquiry Commission contradict each other and that the appointment of the said Inquiry Commission is superfluous in law. With these allegations, the petitioner/has come before this Court with the prayer as stated above. 3. Mr. V. Anantharaju, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the contentions alleged in the affidavit both in law and on merits. The learned counsel further contends that there is no necessity for the Government to state that the said clashes are between the Adi Dravidars and other castes in Thevaram Village and by stating Adi-Dravidas, there is discrimination. The. learned counsel further argues that the Government has singled out the Adi-Dravidas and to blame them for the alleged riots, the Government has appointed the Commission and the terms of reference of the Commission is bad. 4. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Central Act IX of 1952) a Commission of Inquiry consisting of a single member namely Justice Bhaskaran of this Court has been appointed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 1547, Public (Law and Order-B) on 19.9.89. The terms of reference of the Commission as per the Notification are as follows: 3.(i) to inquire into and report the cause and circumstances leading to riots and other disturbances of Law and Order in various places in Madurai district in September, 1989. (ii) to inquire into and report whether the various instances of police firing were justified. (iii) to inquire into and report whether minimum force was used by the police (iv) to inquire into and report whether all the prescribed formalities were observed before opening of fire. (v) to recommend suitable measures to prevent such occurrence in future. (vi) to suggest whether any action against any Government Official is necessary. (iii) to inquire into and report whether minimum force was used by the police (iv) to inquire into and report whether all the prescribed formalities were observed before opening of fire. (v) to recommend suitable measures to prevent such occurrence in future. (vi) to suggest whether any action against any Government Official is necessary. Section 3 (i) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1954 is to the following effect: 3(i) The appropriate to 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 inquiry should be extended to two or more States.... In Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar A.I.R. 1958 S.C.538 while considering the words "the definite matter of public importance" the Supreme Court held as follows: (at 544.p.) We see no warrant for the proposition that a definite matter of public importance must necessarily mean only some matter involving the public benefit or advantage in the abstract, eg. public health, sanitation or the like or some public evil or prejudice, e.g. floods, famine or pestilence or the like. public health, sanitation or the like or some public evil or prejudice, e.g. floods, famine or pestilence or the like. 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.... With regard to the justifiability of the formation of opinion of State Government, the Orissa High Court in Harekrushna Mahbad v. The Chief Minister of Orissa and Ors. A.I.R. 1971 Orissa 175 after referring to a passage from the book "Freedom Under The Law". (7th Impression, 1962) by Lord Denuding, held that "such inquiry is neither judicial nor quasi-judicial but purely administrative" and that "the formation of opinion of State Government which is subjective is not justifiable unless same was arrived at mala fide." In State of Karnataka v. Union of Indian and Anr. while considering the question of validity of the Act, the Supreme Court has held as follows: (at p.91) The obvious intention behind the Commissions of Inquiry Act is to enable the machinery of democratic government to function more efficiently and effectively. The Supreme Court in the above mentioned case has further held that "It is clear from the general Scheme of the Commissions of Inquiry Act that a Commission of Inquiry appointed under the Act is a purely fact-finding body which has no power to pronounce a binding or definitive judgment and it has to collect facts through the evidence led before it and on a consideration thereof it is required to submit its report which the appointing authority may or may not accept." In the above mentioned judgment, after referring to a decision in M. V. Rajwade v. Dr. S.M. Hasan A.I.R. 1954 Nagpur 71 wherein a Commission was appointed to inquire and report about a firing and the adequate action taken to maintain law and order, held that "dealing with the nature of the inquiry the court held that the commission in question was obviously appointed by the State Government for the information of its own mind, in order that it should not act, in exercise of its executive power, otherwise than in accordance with the dictates of justice and equity, in ordering a departmental inquiry against its officers." In Orient Paper Mills v. Union of India the Calcutta High Court referred to Section 3 of the Act and held as follows: (at p.124) Section 3 of the Act has got two parts. It confers power upon the Central Government to appoint a commission if there exists definite matter of public importance and forms an opinion that it is necessary so to do. The appointment of such commission is discretionary. But in case where there is a resolution either by the House of People or by the Legislative Assembly of the State, it is obligatory upon the appropriate Government to appoint a commission of inquiry. Two parts are mutually exclusive. The sources are also different. 5. If the present Notification is examined in the light of the decisions cited supra I do not think that the said Notification is bad in law. The terms of reference of the Commission clearly shows that it is to inquire into and report the cause and circumstances leading to riots and other disturbances of Law and Order in various places in Madurai District in September, 1989 and to inquire into and report whether the various instances of Police firing were justified and also to recommend suitable measures to prevent such occurrence in future. Though the preamble is shown as appointment of commission to inquire into the clashes between Adi-Dravidas and other castes in Thevaram Village and other places in Madurai District in September, 1989, the terms of reference, which have been extracted in the earlier part of this order, do not lend support to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said reference is made as if the said clash is between Adi-Dravidas and other castes. The terms of reference do not refer to Adi-Dravidas at all. The terms of reference do not refer to Adi-Dravidas at all. It is only an Inquiry to inquire into and report the cause and circumstances leading to riots and other disturbances of Law and Order in various places in Madurai District in September, 1989. In my view, the State has taken prompt action and has appointed the Commission of Inquiry headed by a Sitting Judge of this Court to find out the cause and circumstances leading to riots and other disturbances of Law and Order in various places in Madurai District, and it is perfectly valid. 6. The contention of the learned counsel based on Article 14 is unsustainable. As I have already stated the said Commission of Inquiry under the Act is appointed only as a fact finding Authority. It is open to the petitioner to take part in the said Inquiry and file his objections. Nothing prevents the petitioner from taking part in the said Inquiry and raising all the points on merits. I am of the opinion that the appointment of the Commission is perfectly valid in law and cannot be said to be illegal as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition shall stand dismissed.