JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J. ( 1 ) CHALLENGING the Commissions of Inquiry (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1972 and various Government Orders amending the original G. O. Ms. No. 742 Public (Law and Order-F) Dept. dated 27. 7. 2006 and thereby extending the time for completion of Inquiry by Justice Thiru K. P. Sivasubramaniam Commission of Inquiry as unconstitutional and ultra vires, Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. ( 2 ) JUSTICE Thiru K. P. Sivasubramaniam commission of Inquiry was appointed to inquire into the causes and circumstances resulting in the alleged fraudulent grabbing of land assigned to Adi- Dravidars and landless poor. It has also been ordered that the Commission will complete its Inquiry and submit its report to the Government within a period of two months. Under various Government Orders, notifications were ordered to be published amending the time granted for filing of report by the Commission. ( 3 ) EARLIER, petitioner has filed W. P. No. 9160 of 2007 challenging G. O. Ms. No. 742 public (Law and Order-F) Dept. dated 27. 7. 2006 on the ground that only the State or Central Government can appoint the Commission and not the Department or Secretary to the Government. W. P. No. 9160 of 2007 was dismissed on 12. 12. 2007 which is challenged in s. L. P. (Civil) No. 2222 of 2008 before the Supreme Court. On Petition filed by Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Supreme court has ordered that "the Commission appointed in this regard would be at liberty to file the report before the Government. " ( 4 ) IN the present writ petition, petitioner seeks an order of injunction directing the commission from conducting any further proceedings pursuant to the impugned Government Orders and also seeks declaration that the Commissions of Inquiry (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1972 is unconstitutional and unenforceable under law. ( 5 ) WE have heard Mr. Navaneethakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents 2 to 4 and Mr. Elango, learned counsel for 5th respondent. ( 6 ) EVEN at the outset, it is to be pointed out that the first limb of prayer in the writ petition viz. ( 5 ) WE have heard Mr. Navaneethakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents 2 to 4 and Mr. Elango, learned counsel for 5th respondent. ( 6 ) EVEN at the outset, it is to be pointed out that the first limb of prayer in the writ petition viz. , injunction restraining the Commission from conducting any further proceedings is directly contradictory to the direction of the Supreme Court in S. L. P. 2222 of 2008 where the supreme Court has given liberty to the Commission to file the report before the Government. ( 7 ) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is two fold: (i) Various Government Orders issued extending time of Commission is unconstitutional and ultra vires the provisions of Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952; (ii) Commissions of Inquiry (Tamil Nadu) Rules not placed before Legislative Assembly have no statutory force and unconstitutional. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that scheme of the Act and Rules stipulates time frame for completion of Inquiry and filing the report. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn our attention to the proposals for amendment to the existing Act. Tentative draft amendment stipulates that the commission shall complete its Inquiry and make its report to the appropriate Governments within such period as may be specified by the appropriate Governments by notification in the Official Gazette or within such further period as that Government may by notification specify. As per Section 3 (4) of Commissions of Inquiry act, 1952 (for short Act) appropriate Government, shall place the report of Commission of inquiry made by the Commission together with 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. Rule 2 of Commissions of Inquiry (Tamil Nadu) Rules 1972, stipulates terms of office and condition of service of members of Commission. As per Rule 2 - "the State Government may, by notification, require the Commission to submit its report on the points of reference "within a specified period. " ( 9 ) TAKING us through the proposed amendment to the Act Section 3 (4) and Rule 2 of commissions of Inquiry (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1972, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted intention of the Legislature is that Commission, has to file report within the. " ( 9 ) TAKING us through the proposed amendment to the Act Section 3 (4) and Rule 2 of commissions of Inquiry (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1972, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted intention of the Legislature is that Commission, has to file report within the. specified period and extension granted for completion of Inquiry and filing report is ultra vires the provisions of the Act. ( 10 ) SECTION 3 (1) of the Act empowers the government to appoint Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making an Inquiry into any definite matter of public importance. . There is no justification for reading down the provisions of Sections so as to limit the power of the Government fixing the time for completion of Inquiry. The provisions of the Act must receive proper construction. In our considered view, there is no substance in the contention that Government does not possess the power to extend the time for completion of Inquiry and filing the report. ( 11 ) IT is to be pointed out that in a way, petitioner herself appears to be responsible for the delay in completion of Inquiry by the Commission. From the submissions of learned Additional Advocate General, it is seen that petitioner has filed number of Petitions before the Commission. Petition No. 1 of 2006 has been filed objecting to local inspection. Petitioner filed Petition No. 1 of 2007 stating that only government witnesses should be examined first which was dismissed on 27. 2. 2007. Petitioner has also filed Petition No. 3 of 2008 on 16. 7. 2008 on the ground that enquiry cannot include allegation of encroachment into poramboke lands and the same was dismissed on 4. 8. 2008. Objecting to marking of proceedings/files relating to transfer of patta in favour of petitioner, petitioner has filed Petition No. 4 of 2008 which was dismissed on 12. 12. 2008. Petitioner also filed Petition No. 5 of 2008 on 17. 12. 2008 with a prayer to appoint a Gazetted officer to seize the relevant records from the revenue Offices and the same was dismissed on 2. 1. 2009. Petitioner also filed W. P. No. 750 of 2009 questioning the order passed in Petition No. 5 of 2008 dt. 2. 1. 2009 and the said writ petition is pending. 12. 2008 with a prayer to appoint a Gazetted officer to seize the relevant records from the revenue Offices and the same was dismissed on 2. 1. 2009. Petitioner also filed W. P. No. 750 of 2009 questioning the order passed in Petition No. 5 of 2008 dt. 2. 1. 2009 and the said writ petition is pending. That apart as pointed out earlier, petitioner has also filed W. P. No. 9160 of 2007 challenging appointment of commission of Inquiry and the dismissal of said W. P. No. 9160 of 2007 is now challenged before the Supreme Court in S. L. P. (Civil) No. 2222 of 2008. Having filed number of Petitions one after another and having contributed to the delay, petitioner now cannot challenge extension of time under various Government orders. ( 12 ) THE next limb of challenge is Commissions of Inquiry (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1972 are unconstitutional and unenforceable. Section 12 of the Act deals with "power of the Government to make Rules. " Under Section 12 (1) of the Act, "appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. " as per Section 12 (4) of the Act, "every rule made by the State Government under this Section shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before the State Legislature. " ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for the writ petitioner contended that Commissions of Inquiry (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1972 has not been placed before the State Legislature and therefore, commissions of Inquiry (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1972 is unenforceable and hence, invoking the rules, Government cannot extend the time of the Commission by issuing various Government Orders directing publication of notification extending further time. ( 14 ) AS rightly submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General, various Government Orders issued are not exactly extending the time of Commission; but issuing notification for amending the original G. O. Ms. 742 Public (Law and Order-F) Dept. dated 27. 7. 2006. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention that Government has no power to issue such notification for amending the original government Order and thereby extending the time for filing report by the Commission. ( 15 ) CONTENTION of writ petitioner as to non-compliance with Section 12 (4) of the Act with laying of Rules before the State Legislature has no merits. ( 15 ) CONTENTION of writ petitioner as to non-compliance with Section 12 (4) of the Act with laying of Rules before the State Legislature has no merits. The issue relating to laying of Rules/regulations on the table of houses/state Legislature has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in various cases. In veneet Agrawal v. Union of India and Others (2007) 13 SCC 166, Supreme Court considered framing of Rules and Regulations under sections 29, 30 and 31 of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Stockbrokers and sub-brokers) Regulations, 1992. Observing that laying of rule before both the Houses of parliament is merely a directory rule and not mandatory, Supreme Court has held as under:- "75. This apart the issue relating to the laying down of rules/regulations on the table of the Houses for the period provided under the statute under which they are so framed has been dealt with by this Court in various cases. Some of these cases are Jan mohammad Noor Mohammad Bagban v. State of Gujarat AIR 1966 SC 385 : (1966)1 SCR 505 ; Atlas Cycle Industries Limited v. State of Haryana AIR 1979 SC 1149 : (1979) 2 SCC 196 : (1979) SCC (Cri) 422; hukkam Chand v. Union of India AIR 1972 sc 2427 : (1972) 2 SCC 601 and Bank of India v. O. P. Swarnakar AIR 2003 SC 858 : (2003) 2 SCC 721 : 2003-I-LLJ-819 : (2003) SCC (Lands) 200. In a recent judgment, this Court followed the view taken in atlas Cycle Industries Limited v. State of Haryana (supra) and Prohibition and Excise Suptd. , A. P. v. Today Tappers Coop Society AIR 2004 SC 658 : (2003) 12 SCC 738. 16. In all these cases, the issue relating to laying down and interpretation of the said regulation was examined. It has been held in all these cases that the laying of the rule before both the Houses of Parliament is merely a directory rule and not mandatory. , in Bank of India v. O. P. Swarnakar (supra)the provision providing for laying the rules before the legislature was exactly similar to section 31 of the SEBI Act. It was also held by this Court that the said provision was directory and not mandatory. , in Bank of India v. O. P. Swarnakar (supra)the provision providing for laying the rules before the legislature was exactly similar to section 31 of the SEBI Act. It was also held by this Court that the said provision was directory and not mandatory. The noncompliance with the laying of the rule before Parliament was not a sufficient ground to declare the rules/regulations framed under the statute as to be ultra vires. In Prohibition and excise Suptd. , A. P. v. Today Tappers Coop society (supra) Hon'ble Mr Justice Sinha in his concurring judgment following the decision in Atlas Cycle Industries Limited v. State of Haryana (supra) and Quarry Owners ' Association v. State of Bihar (2000) 8 SCC 655 and various other judgments, distinguishing the judgment in Union of India v. National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. , AIR 2001 SC 2512 : (2001) 6 SCC 307 which has been relied upon by counsel for the appellant before us as well) has held as under: "52 The said observations, thus, must be held to be confined to the fact of the matter obtaining therein. In that case it was found as of fact that the rule had never been placed before the legislature and, thus, there was even no substantial compliance with the law. The Bench, however, did not consider the effect of the directory nature of such a provision, in the light of the decision of this court in Atlas Cycle Industries Limited v. State of Haryana (supra) and Quarry Owners' Association v. State of Bihar (supra ). The Court further did not notice the difference between the expressions 'approval' and 'permission'. Section 16 of the Water act, construction whereof was in question did not use the expression 'prior approval". The word 'approval' indicates an Act which has already been made and is required to be approved whereas in the case of 'permission' the situation would be different. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. P. P. Singh (2003) 4 SCC 239 : (2003) SCC (Lands) 424 stating: "40. When an approval is required, an action holds good. Only if it is disapproved it loses its force. Only when a permission is required the decision does not become effective till permission is obtained. (See U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop. When an approval is required, an action holds good. Only if it is disapproved it loses its force. Only when a permission is required the decision does not become effective till permission is obtained. (See U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop. Housing Society Ltd. (1995) Supp 3 SCC 456 ). In the instant case both the aforementioned requirements have been fulfilled. " 17. It was observed that provision was merely directory and not mandatory and even if the rules were not laid before the house at all even then the non-compliance with the laying down of the rules before Parliament could not be a ground to declare the rules/regulations framed under the statue as ultra vires. " Following ratio of the above decision we hold that non-compliance with the laying of rules before State Legislature by itself is not a sufficient ground to declare rules/regulations framed under the statute as ultra vires. ( 16 ) AS per G. O. Ms. No. 437 Revenue (LD 3 (2) Department dated 19. 11. 2009, Government extended the period of Commission up to 31. 12. 2009, We are of the view that Writ Petition has been filed at this belated stage only with a view to delay the further proceedings of the Commission. It is also pertinent to note that even though, on 7. 12. 2009 when SLP (Civil)2222 of 2009 came up before the Supreme court, this point was not raised before the Supreme Court and by order dated 7. 12. 2009, supreme Court permitted the Commission to file their report before the Government. ( 17 ) FIRST limb of prayer in the writ petition is directly contradictory to the order of Supreme Court S. L. P. (Civil) No. 2222 of 2008. We do not find any merit in any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for writ petitioner and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 18 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .