JUDGMENT/ORDER : The vacate stay petitions are taken up for consideration in view of the fact that pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court, the Commission of Inquiry, appointed in the year 2011, is functioning without performing any duties and responsibilities for the past about 3 years. The financial sanctions are accorded to the Commission of Inquiry for more than Rs.2 crores without any performance of public duties and responsibilities. Thus, the tax payers' money are being spent in violation of the public interest and causing wrongful financial loss to the State Exchequer. This Court is of an opinion that any delay in disposing of the vacate stay petitions will cause great prejudice to the State Exchequer and, the public at large, cannot made to suffer on account of the interim stay granted and on account of the wrongful loss to the State Exchequer. 2. The word “writ petitioner” will indicate the petitioner in the main writ petition, the “first respondent” wherever stated will indicate “The Secretary, Thiru R.Regupathi Commission of Inlquiry, Government Bungalow, NCBI, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Chennai-600 028”, the second respondent wherever stated will indicate “Justice R.Regupathi (Retd.), Single Member, Thiru R.Regupathi Commission of Inlquiry, Government Bungalow, NCBI, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Chennai-600 028” and the “third respondent” wherever stated will indicate “The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Chief Secretary, Namakkal Kavignar Maligai, Chennai-600 009” in these petitions. 3. The case was listed for hearing on 17.7.2018. At the request of the learned counsels, the matter was again posted on 18.7.2018. On 18.7.2018, request was made to adjourn the matter to get instructions and to ascertain the present status. The learned Advocate General and Additional Advocate General also argued certain points discreetly. Thus, the matter was posted for orders on 26.7.2018. Since the vacate stay petitions were filed in the year 2015 and for three years the vacate stay petitions are pending and, when the stay is in force for three years and, huge amount of tax payers' money is spent to the Commissions of Inquiry without performing any public duties and responsibilities. This Court thought it fit that the vacate stay petitions are to be disposed without any further lapse of time. This Court thought it fit that the vacate stay petitions are to be disposed without any further lapse of time. When the matter was posted on 26.7.2018 for orders on that day, the learned counsels made a request for adjournment and again, the matter was posted on 1.8.2018, enabling the Advocate General to get the particulars regarding the Commissions of Inquiry. Again on 1.8.2018, the matter was adjourned for orders on 2.8.2018. 4. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, requested for adjournments. The ground raised is that this Court cannot hear the final disposal of the writ petition on account of the roster and at the time of grant of interim order on 12.3.2015, this Court made an observation that the stay will be in force till the final disposal of the writ petition. Thus, even the vacate stay petition and the miscellaneous petitions need not be taken up for hearing. A memo was filed on 1.8.2018 stating that the copy of the vacate petitions were not served. However, this Court found that the copy of the vacate stay petitions were already served and necessary acknowledgements were obtained by the counsel for the respondents. The learned Senior Counsel, then opposed by stating that he did not know who received the papers. This Court is unable to accept such an argument of a counsel and this Court immediately handed over the additional copies of the vacate stay petitions to the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner and posted the matter for arguments on 2.8.2018. 5. On 2.8.2018, the learned Senior Counsel was not present and the counsel on record filed another memo setting out various grounds and requested for adjournments. The Court declined to grant long adjournments and posted the matter on 3.8.2018 for hearing. 6. Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India enumerates that “If a Vacate Stay Petition is filed by the persons against whom such an interim order is passed, then the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of the application is so furnished. It is a constitutional mandate that whenever an interim order is passed by this Court and the person against whom such an interim order is passed, has filed an application, seeking for vacating the order, then there cannot be any delay in disposing of the petition. Though the time limit of two weeks is prescribed, the Courts are unable to comply with the provisions of the Constitution on account of heavy work load. However, the Courts should ensure that such Vacate Stay applications are heard and disposed of, as early as possible without causing undue delay or without providing scope for the litigants to take undue advantage of the interim orders passed by this Court. Interim orders are passed on certain limited grounds that there cannot be any delay in disposing of the Vacate Stay applications. Submissions of Shri.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner: 7. Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner, mainly contended that the present writ petition has been filed on the ground of bias, the non adherence of the procedures, contradictions in taking decisions and sending summons or notices and further, the issuance of summons are contrary to the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned Senior Counsel strenuously contended that 200 persons were examined by the Commission of Inquiry behind the back of the writ petitioner. Out of which, 95 persons have given affidavit. All these affidavits are stereo typed and obtained without following the established procedures. Thus, the order passed by the Commissions of Inquiry on 05.06.2013 is directly in violation of the rules. The writ petitioner, being the Former Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu, released a press note that the 2nd respondent is holding many Commissions apart from his functioning as the Chairman of the State Commission Redressal Forum. When such factual aspects in relation to the appointments of the 2nd respondent was published, thereafter, the 2nd respondent started acting against the writ petitioner by issuing summons in violation of the Provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act and Rules. 8. When such factual aspects in relation to the appointments of the 2nd respondent was published, thereafter, the 2nd respondent started acting against the writ petitioner by issuing summons in violation of the Provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act and Rules. 8. Section 8-B of the Commissions of Enquiry Act, contemplates that if at any stage of the enquiry, the Commission,(a) considers it necessary to inquire into the conduct of any person; or (b) is of an opinion that the reputation of any person is likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry. 9. Citing the provisions, it is contended that the summon does not indicate any one of the circumstances. Contrarily, summons states that the presence of the writ petitioner is required to explain in respect of the construction of the New Assembly Building in Omandurar Estate. Thus, the notice issued under Section 8-B of the Act is in violation of the provision itself. 10. The learned Senior counsel for the writ petitioner citing the various orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2, has stated that there are self-contradictions and the procedures adopted and regulated by the 2nd respondent is Draconian in nature and the basic principles of natural justice has not been violated at all. The Commissions of Inquiry is performing the Quasi judicial functions. Thus, it is mandatory on the part of the Commission to follow the principles of natural justice. A person, who is likely to be affected, must be given an opportunity to submit statements and to cross-examine the persons, who have given statement of the affidavits. However, no such procedure was followed by the 2nd respondent, while conducting the enquiry. Section 4 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act empowers that Commission to exercise the powers of the Civil Court, while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of such powers, the Commission is expected to act judiciously and all reasonable opportunity must be provided to the persons, who all are likely to be affected or already affected. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition, challenging the very summon issued by the Commissions of Inquiry. In view of such powers, the Commission is expected to act judiciously and all reasonable opportunity must be provided to the persons, who all are likely to be affected or already affected. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition, challenging the very summon issued by the Commissions of Inquiry. The writ petition is maintainable on the ground that personal bias has been raised in this writ petition and this apart, the proceedings issued by the Commissions of Inquiry is apparent that the 2nd respondent expressed his ill feelings against the writ petitioner. 11. In respect of the contentions, the learned Senior Counsel cited the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Sri K.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others [ AIR 1996 AP 62 ], the two Judges Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, held as follows:- “From the above decisions what follows is, that when a Court, judicial authority, quasi-judicial authority or a statutory authority or any other authority including administrative authority takes a decision which has civil consequences and/or affects the rights of a person, the doctrine of bias would apply.” “Having gone through the judgment in Bakshi Gulam Mohammed's case, referred to supra, carefully, we are unable to say that the Supreme Court laid down therein that the rules of natural justice do not apply to the proceedings before the Commission of Inquiry. In our view the principle ‘there is no question of invoking the rule of natural justice’ to proceeding before the Commission of Inquiry, is too broadly stated by the learned author to be accepted.” “It is, therefore, clear that the principles of natural justice are applicable to the proceeding before the Commission and the question of contravention of those principles has to be decided in the light of the terms of reference to the Commission, provisions of the Act, the rules made thereunder and the procedure settled by the Commission.” “Therefore, it is of fundamental importance to ensure that the enquiry is fair and impartial and in appointing Commissions under the Act, the germane consideration should be that the public confidence is strengthened or restored, as the case may be, lest it should be shattered.” 12. In the case of State of Bihar vs. Lal Krishna Advani [ (2003) 8 SCC 361 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as under:- “The High Court, while referring to a decision reported in State of J&K v. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad [ AIR 1967 SC 122 ] observed that when an authority takes a decision, which may have civil consequences and affects the right of a person, the principles of natural justice would at once come into play. Reputation of an individual is an important part of one's life.” “It is thus amply clear that one is entitled to have and preserve one's reputation and one also has a right to protect it. In case any authority, in discharge of its duties fastened upon it under the law, traverses into the realm of personal reputation adversely affecting him, it must provide a chance to him to have his say in the matter.” “The experience during the past two decades must have made the legislature realize that it would but be necessary to notice a person whose conduct the Commission considers necessary to inquire into during the course of the inquiry or whose reputation is likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry. It is further provides that such a person would have a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to adduce evidence in his defence. Thus the principles of natural justice were got inducted in the shape of a statutory provision. It is thus incumbent upon the Commission to give an opportunity to a person, before any comment is made or opinion is expressed which is likely to prejudicially affect that person. Needless to emphasise that failure to comply with the principles of natural justice renders the action non est as well as the consequences thereof.” 13. In the case of Sanjay Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [ 2014 (9) Scale 34 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:- “Similar notices were sent to the other organizers. On a perusal of the said notice, it is limpid that the said notice is in the nature of notice requiring him to appear. It has to be construed as a notice under Section 4(a) of the Act. On a perusal of the said notice, it is limpid that the said notice is in the nature of notice requiring him to appear. It has to be construed as a notice under Section 4(a) of the Act. That apart, on a scrutiny of the list of witnesses who were examined by the Commission, we find that the respondents 10 to 12 were summoned almost after examination of 45 witnesses and the respondent- organisers were not afforded opportunity of cross-examination. The Commission, on the basis of the evidence and taking recourse to certain violation of statutory provisions, has submitted the report.” “In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is difficult to sustain the report. We are obliged to state here that in course of hearing, we had asked the learned counsel for the parties that in case the report of the Commission would be set aside. The Commission has to proceed after following the provisions of the Act. The said position was acceded to.” 14. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the judgment cited by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 in the case of reported in 2014 6 SCC 486 , is not applicable with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case. As far as the present case is concerned, there is a blatant violation on the part of the Commissions of Inquiry even in issuing the summons and notices and passing orders. There is a personal bias against the writ petitioner and the element of bias has been established throughout the proceedings. The writ petitioner was not provided with a fair hearing. The writ petitioner was not permitted for cross-examination. The proceedings issued by the Commission, stipulates that the Commission will proceed based on the affidavits filed by all the persons. The writ petitioner will not be permitted to cross-examine those persons. Under these circumstances, the writ petitioner cannot be expected to participate in the proceedings at all. Submissions of the learned Advocate General for the third respondent: 15.The learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the third respondent, disapproved the contends of the writ petitioner, stating that the writ petitions are filed challenging the orders passed by the Commission of Inquiry, which all are procedural in nature. Submissions of the learned Advocate General for the third respondent: 15.The learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the third respondent, disapproved the contends of the writ petitioner, stating that the writ petitions are filed challenging the orders passed by the Commission of Inquiry, which all are procedural in nature. The learned Advocate General referred various documents, which all are challenged in the present writ petitions dated 5.6.2013, 26.6.2014, 17.2.2015 and 26.2.2015. All such orders are passed by the Commission of Inquiry pursuant to the powers provided under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. Procedural orders passed will not constitute a ground for filing writ petitions. Thus, the writ petitions are to be rejected. 16. The learned Advocate General fairly admitted the fact that the writ petitioner cannot be compelled to appear before the Commission of Inquiry in view of his old age and serious ailments. Even the State will not insist for the personal appearance of the writ petitioner before the Commission of Inquiry. Thus, the State will not make any request to the Commission of Enquiry for the personal appearance of the writ petitioner or to give any statement before the Commission of Inquiry. In view of the submissions made by the learned Advocate General, this Court is of an opinion that the Commission of Inquiry, at this point of time, cannot insist the writ petitioner for his personal appearance or for giving any statement. The writ petitioner on account of his old age and serious ailments, is not in a position to assist the Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of adjudicating the references. Thus, this Court is of an opinion that the respondents, at no point of time, can insist the writ petitioner for his personal appearance or otherwise. Submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents 1 and 2: 17. The learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, contended that the Commission of Inquiry is independent and the Commission is empowered to formulate its own procedures for the purpose of conducting the proceedings. Referring to the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, more specifically, Section 4, the learned Additional Advocate General states that the Commission has got powers to summon and enforce the attendance of any person and examine him on oath. Referring to the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, more specifically, Section 4, the learned Additional Advocate General states that the Commission has got powers to summon and enforce the attendance of any person and examine him on oath. The Commission has got powers to discover and production of any document and receiving evidence or affidavit or requisitioning any public records or copy thereof from any Court or otherwise. The Commission has got even additional powers also under Section 5 and under Section 5-A, the Commission is empowered to utilise the services of certain Officers and Investigating Agencies for conducting investigation pertaining to inquiry. In this regard, the Commission has already engaged a Police Official in the rank of Superintendent of Police along with some other Officials to assist him to conduct the investigation in relation to the references made by the Government in its order. Section 8 contemplates the procedure to be followed by the Commission and accordingly the Commission can regulate its own procedure, including the fixing of places and times of its sittings and deciding whether to sit in public or in private. The power of the Tribunal to regulate its procedures, cannot be questioned in view of the fact that the powers are provided under the Statutes. Section 8-B of the Act, is provided in order to comply with the basic principles of natural justice. A cogent reading of all these provisions of Act, it is clear that the Commission is empowered to function by regulating its own procedure and therefore, there is no infirmity, as such, in respect of the orders passed by the Commission, which is under challenge in these writ petitions. 18. The learned Additional Advocate General in support of his contentions, cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Sudesh Dogra v. Union of India [ (2014) 6 SCC 486 ], wherein in paragraph-13, it has been held as follows:- “13. In a situation where the State Government, at the very outset, had committed itself to setting up of a Commission of Inquiry and in fact had issued the necessary Notification on 23-8-2013 containing very wide terms of reference, as seen, we do not consider it necessary to go into any of the issues that are presently before the Commission. Two apprehensions have been expressed on behalf of the petitioner in this regard. Two apprehensions have been expressed on behalf of the petitioner in this regard. The first is that the mechanism set up is highly time-consuming and, secondly, that the report of the Commission is merely recommendatory. Insofar as the first apprehension is concerned, the same can be resolved by a direction requesting the Commission to complete its task within a particular time-frame. Insofar as the legal effect of the findings of the Commission are concerned, it will be wrong to assume anything in this regard at this stage, including the possible stand of the State Government. The reports of such Commission, in our considered view, should be objectively viewed by the State Governments and necessary corrective steps and action should be initiated to further good governance. In a democracy governed by the rule of law every institution is open to self-correction and must acknowledge its shortcomings, if any. In view of the above and taking into account that the parties aggrieved by the report that may be submitted and such action as may be taken by the State on the basis of such report are not without their remedies in law we are of the view that the Commission should be allowed to complete its task at the earliest. We, accordingly, request the Commission to complete its enquiry as early as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from today, if the final report has not already been submitted in the meantime. The Government will naturally be duty-bound to take all necessary and consequential steps on the basis of the said report as would be mandated in law.” In view of the abovesaid judgment, cited by the learned Additional Advocate General, it is contended that there is no infirmity, as such, in respect of the procedures followed by the Commission of Inquiry and therefore, the Commission may be allowed to continue in order to complete the inquiry in all respects and submit a report before the Government for its consideration and implementation. 19. 19. The learned Additional Advocate General by referring the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the first respondent, states that it is on record that about 24 persons, who all are Government Servants, were summoned under Section 8-B of the Act and those 24 persons were furnished with Questionnaires and only after they have given the answers to the Questionnaires, it was decided to issue summons to the Public Servants, including the writ petitioner, is misleading for the simple reason that in the order of Commission of Inquiry dated 26.6.2014, which is found in page-3 of the writ petitioner's typed set of papers, the reasons for summoning the persons under Section 8-B of the Act, has been mentioned and further it was decided on 26.6.2014 itself to issue summons to all the Government Servants/public servants, including the writ petitioner under Section 8-B of the Act. Thus, the allegations that the Commission of Inquiry has summoned the public servants after getting reply from the public/Government servants, is totally false and mischievous. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner was given full liberty and freedom to peruse all the documents connected with the proceedings, since they are voluminous. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner inspecting and examining the documents for several days in the Office of Commissions of Inquiry. Thus, the contentions now raised in these writ petitions are incorrect. This apart, the orders challenged are procedural in nature and such procedures are already regulated and there is no infirmity. In this view of the matter, the present writ petitions are premature and the writ petitioner has not established any cause of action for the purpose of entertaining the writ petitions or for the continuance of the interim order. Pleadings of the Writ Petitioner: 20. The writ petitioner has filed WP No.25445 of 2014 for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in G.O.Ms.No.1143, Public (Buildings) Department, dated 2.12.2011 issued by the third respondent appointing the second respondent as a Single Member of the Commissions of Inquiry and all its proceedings culminating into summons dated 2.9.2014 and order dated 11.9.2014 and to quash the same as it is in violation of Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and rules framed thereunder as well as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 21. 21. The writ petitioner filed another writ petition in WP No.7049 of 2015 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first and second respondents dated 5.6.2013, 26.6.2014, 17.2.2015 and 26.2.2015 including the Questionnaire framed by the second respondent and bearing the seal of the first respondent dated 13.2.2015 and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional and in violation of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 and the Rules framed thereunder. 22. The writ petitioner contends that when the above writ petition viz., WP 25445 of 2014 came up for hearing before this Court on 17.9.2014, this Court dispensed with the appearance of the writ petitioner and orally instructed the learned Senior Counsel Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, appearing for the first respondent, not to proceed further. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the first respondent, undertook orally that he will instruct the Commission not to proceed further with the hearing. The inquiry was heard by the second respondent on 9.10.2014 and a memo was filed on 9.10.2014 by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, informing the fact regarding filing of the writ petition and the undertaking given by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Commission. On receipt of the said memo, the second respondent passed an order as under:- “Since writ petitions are pending in the Hon'ble Court, the proceedings are adjourned to 5.11.2014 at 11.00 A.M.”. In spite of the pendency of the writ petition, certain unusual events were taken place, which would disclose the apparent and continuing personal bias of the second respondent against the writ petitioner, which was noticed in all his subsequent proceedings. 23. The details of the subsequent proceedings are narrated as under:- (a) On 5.11.2014, a Memo was filed on behalf of the writ petitioner before the Commission inter alia reiterating the undertaking given by the Senior Advocate of the Commission and pendency of the writ petition. After receiving the Memo, the second respondent adjourned the proceedings on 12.11.2014. Again on 12.11.2014, similar types of memos were filed and therefore, the proceedings were adjourned on various dates to 20.11.2014, 3.12.2014, 11.12.2014, 18.12.2014, 8.1.2015, 22.1.2015 and 13.2.2015 by the second respondent. After receiving the Memo, the second respondent adjourned the proceedings on 12.11.2014. Again on 12.11.2014, similar types of memos were filed and therefore, the proceedings were adjourned on various dates to 20.11.2014, 3.12.2014, 11.12.2014, 18.12.2014, 8.1.2015, 22.1.2015 and 13.2.2015 by the second respondent. (b) When the matter was taken up on 13.2.2015, the second respondent found fault with the petitioner's counsels that they have not taken any steps to list the above writ petitions for hearing and that they are adopting delaying tactics and the second respondent directed the counsels to receive the Questionnaire as per order of this Court dated 7.10.2014. (c) According to the Common order dated 13.2.2015, the second respondent has observed that there is a direction by this Court to receive the Questionnaire and that the Questionnaires are readily available from the date of filing of counter affidavit in the writ petition (i.e., on 27.10.2014). This cannot be true, as this Court has not given any positive direction to receive the Questionnaire. Further, the preamble to Questionnaire sent through proceeding dated 17.2.2015 has the first respondent seal affixed as 13.2.2015. Therefore, it could be safely concluded that the impugned Questionnaire was made ready only on 13.2.2015 and not on 27.10.2014 as observed by the second respondent. (d) The second respondent, in the aforesaid order, has observed that the Writ Petitions in WP No.25445 of 2014, WP No.26621 and 26622 of 2014 have not been listed for final haring, when it is a fact that this Court has not directed to list the matter for final hearing at all and that stage has not been reached. In fact, the pleadings have not been completed by the second respondent in the aforesaid writ petitions. (e) The writ petitioner's counsels filed a memo on the same day i.e., 13.2.2015 before the second respondent, bringing to the notice of the second respondent that since the Senior Counsel for Commission has given an undertaking not to proceed with further hearing, the Commission cannot compel the counsels to receive the Questionnaires. The second respondent then adjourned the hearing to 25.2.2015. (f) Thereupon, the second respondent, without giving any notice to the writ petitioner or to writ petitioner's counsels, advanced the hearing suo moto on 17.2.2015 and in a special sitting on 17.2.2015 passed an order dated 17.2.2015 that the Questionnaires to be served directly on the writ petitioner. The second respondent then adjourned the hearing to 25.2.2015. (f) Thereupon, the second respondent, without giving any notice to the writ petitioner or to writ petitioner's counsels, advanced the hearing suo moto on 17.2.2015 and in a special sitting on 17.2.2015 passed an order dated 17.2.2015 that the Questionnaires to be served directly on the writ petitioner. The proceedings dated 17.2.2015 along with annexures is filed as a document in the Typed Set of papers which may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit. (g) When the Commission on 13.2.2015 has adjourned the proceedings to 25.2.2015, there was no necessity for the Commission to sit specifically on 17.2.2015 without notice to the writ petitioner or writ petitioner's counsels and pass the impugned proceedings dated 17.2.2015 behind writ petitioner's back and direct that the Questionnaires be served on the writ petitioner. A notice to the Commission Standing Counsel was therefore sent informing that the conduct of the respondent amounts to a breach of undertaking given before this Court. (h) Immediately after receipt of the proceedings dated 17.2.2015, a memo was filed before the Commission on 25.2.2015 bringing to its notice the undertaking given by the Senior Counsel not to proceed further before this Court and that the prayer in the writ petition would become infructuous if Commission proceeds further and therefore sought to recall the order. (i) On receipt of the memo, dated 25.2.2015, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 26.2.2015 to file response to the Questionnaire so as to proceed further. (j) Even though the second respondent in the impugned proceedings dated 26.2.2015 has not disputed the undertaking given by the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the first respondent, before this Court not to proceed with the matter, yet the second respondent has passed the impugned order to file response to the Questionnaire and to submit before the Commission on the next hearing viz., 12.3.2015. (k) The mindset and the indifferent attitude of the second respondent is nothing but a reflection of the writ petitioner's personal bias which is evident in each and every proceeding referred to above, especially the proceedings dated 17.2.2015 and 25.2.2015 compelling the parties to proceed despite the pendency of the writ petition on the file of this Court and also commenting upon the proceedings before this Court without any bias. (l) The impugned Questionnaire is issued on the basis of the procedures framed by the second respondent dated 5.6.2013 which is contrary to the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and rules framed thereunder. (m) In fact, till today, the writ petitioner has not been served with a copy of the evidence, affidavits or reports along with Questionnaire which allegedly imputes allegations against the writ petitioner for the first respondent to summon the writ petitioner under Section 8B. In fact, the writ petitioner's counsels were allowed to inspect only a few documents on 11.9.2014 and not all the documents were allowed to be perused. Even then, no copies were served on the writ petitioner. Therefore, allowing only a hurried inspection of few documents alone cannot be “sufficient opportunity” to the writ petitioner. Even otherwise, it is the duty cast upon the Commissions of Inquiry to enclose all the materials relied upon to arrive at the questions in the Questionnaire which the Commission has miserably failed to do in W.P.No.7049 of 2015. 24. When the matter stands at that stage, the writ petitioner filed a memo on 11.9.2014, requesting the Commission to furnish all the documents including the technical reports, investigation reports, contemporaneous materials and all other documents, affidavits collected from 95 persons and affidavits collected from 24 Government Officials, to enable the writ petitioner to answer imputations (if any) against the writ petitioner. Through an order dated 11.9.2014, the second respondent informed the writ petitioner that all the documents can be perused by the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner and if required, the copies of documents may also be sought for. However, no documents were furnished to the writ petitioner despite the fact that the memo was filed on 11.9.2014, seeking all such relevant documents, even in memo dated 25.2.2015, the said request was made. 25. It is contended that the second respondent is performing a quasi judicial function and the writ petitioner was expected to answer the Questionnaire. Under these circumstances furnishing of all the relevant documents to the writ petitioner is certainly essential for the purpose of defending the case. It is further stated that the learned counsel was also not permitted to inspect the records on 6.3.2015. Another memo was filed on 6.3.2015 before the Commission that the conduct of the Commission is to defy its own order dated 11.9.2014. It is further stated that the learned counsel was also not permitted to inspect the records on 6.3.2015. Another memo was filed on 6.3.2015 before the Commission that the conduct of the Commission is to defy its own order dated 11.9.2014. The conduct of the second respondent showed that the continuing biased state of mind which would frustrate the mandate of an unbiased, impartial and fair enquiry that the Commissions of Inquiry Act contemplates. Under these circumstances, framing of Questionnaire on 13.2.2015 is in violation of the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and the Rules framed thereunder. The materials collected by the second respondent Commission to prepare the impugned Questionnaire was by appointing an Investigating Agency. Such appointment of an Investigating Agency is without the concurrence of the State Government and therefore, is in violation of Section 5-A of the Act. Thus, the constitution of the Investigating Agency itself is illegal and all acts done by the Investigating Agency, including the materials collected by them is non-est in law, cannot be relied upon by the second respondent to frame the impugned Questionnaire. 26. The wit petitioner states that the Investigating Agency has filed its report on 10.4.2014 and the Technical Committee has filed its report on 9.4.2014. Out of 200 persons examined by the Investigating Agency, 95 persons, including IAS Officials and PWD Engineers have filed their affidavits before the Commission from 12.7.2013 to 3.12.2013, It is on record that about 24 persons, who all are Government Servants, were summoned under Section 8-B of the Act and those 24 persons were furnished with Questionnaires and only after they have given the answers to the Questionnaires, the Commission decided to summon the Public Servants, including the writ petitioner. Thus, the material imputing the reputation of the writ petitioner, which the second respondent relied upon to classify the writ petitioner as a person covered under Section 8-B of the Act, is not furnished to the writ petitioner along with the Questionnaire. 27. It is trite in law that when the second respondent makes imputations against the conduct of the writ petitioner, which prejudices or affects the reputation of the writ petitioner, the materials relied upon should be furnished along with those imputations. 27. It is trite in law that when the second respondent makes imputations against the conduct of the writ petitioner, which prejudices or affects the reputation of the writ petitioner, the materials relied upon should be furnished along with those imputations. Hence, serving the impugned Questionnaire, without enclosing those materials, is unfair, unreasonable and illegal and cannot be the reasonable opportunity as contemplated under Section 8-B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. 28. The very continuance of the second respondent as a Member of the Commission itself is under challenge in WP No.25445 of 2014, without due regard to the pendency of the above writ petition, the second respondent is committing illegality by preparing and forwarding the impugned Questionnaire hastily and directing the writ petitioner to file response in order to circumvent the pendency of the writ petition. 29. The second respondent has framed the impugned Questionnaire dated 13.2.2015, which is in violation of Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and the Rules. The Rule 14 reads as under:- “14. Any other matter which has to be or may be prescribed, the Commission shall have the power to regulate its own procedure in respect of any matter for which no provision is made in the Rules.” 30. Thus, only when there are no provisions made in the Rules for certain matters, the Commission can devise its own procedure, with respect to those matters alone. Examination of witness, production of evidence, cross-examination etc., is stated in Rules 7 to 11 of the Commissions of Inquiry (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1972. Section 4 of the Act, empowers the Commission to have powers of a Civil Court under the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, when the Code of Civil Procedure is made applicable in so far as the examination of witness, the issuance of Questionnaire by the Commission itself is unknown to the Code. 31. The materials collected by the second respondent is without following the procedure laid down in Rule 7 of the Commissions of Inquiry Rules. The Commission has passed a direction to the Superintendent of Police and the Investigating Agency appointed by the Commission on 11.6.2013, to intimate those persons, who have given their statements before the Investigating Agency, to file an affidavit before the Commission. The Commission has passed a direction to the Superintendent of Police and the Investigating Agency appointed by the Commission on 11.6.2013, to intimate those persons, who have given their statements before the Investigating Agency, to file an affidavit before the Commission. The Investigating Agency filed its report only on 10.4.2014 and even before the report was filed, the second respondent has under Memorandum dated 11.6.2013, directed the Investigating Agency to obtain the affidavits from the witnesses. Such a procedure adopted is illegal and there is no records as to whether the second respondent has verified the veracity of the report or statements collected by the Investigating Agency. In the absence of any such statements, the Commission cannot rely upon the report. The statements given to the Police, cannot be converted mechanically into the affidavits and taken on record by the second respondent and such a proceeding is in violation of Rule 7(1). Instead of issuing notice to the individual persons as contemplated under Rule 7(1)(a), the blanket direction issued by the Commission on 11.6.2013 to procure the affidavits cannot be countenanced in law. Only when the Investigating Agency has filed the investigation report, the first respondent has to come to a conclusion that the persons, in its opinion ought to be given an opportunity of being heard in the inquiry, and only then should the Commission have proceeded to issue individual notice to the said persons. When the Commission has chosen to get the affidavits from the persons, who all are acquainted with the subject matter of the inquiry, including the 95 persons, the Commission ought to have followed the procedures as contemplated under Rules 7(1) and 8(1). 32. Procuring the affidavits mechanically from the witness examined by Police and taking them on record as evidence on behalf of the State, cannot be countenanced in law. Accepting the affidavits even without complying with Rule 8(1) is blatantly illegal. 32. Procuring the affidavits mechanically from the witness examined by Police and taking them on record as evidence on behalf of the State, cannot be countenanced in law. Accepting the affidavits even without complying with Rule 8(1) is blatantly illegal. The receipt of 95 affidavits and taking them on record by the Commission suo moto without a speaking order and also all the materials that were collected by way of investigation, reports and technical reports and relying on the materials even without allowing them to be tested by way of cross-examination by the writ petitioner and while-so, the action of the first respondent in framing the impugned Questionnaire is certainly an illegal procedure followed by the first respondent and therefore, the impugned Questionnaire is vitiated by the illegality. 33. It is the duty cast upon the Commission to permit the persons covered under Rule 10 to cross-examine a witness. Therefore, in as much as the evidence and the documents have been brought on record behind the back of the writ petitioner, the evidence which the State Government has furnished as contemplated under Rule 8 ought to have been permitted to be cross-examined by the writ petitioner under Rule 10. When the Commission calls upon the persons under Rule 10, it is implicit that the Commission should furnish all the materials/documents and evidence to enable such persons to produce evidence in his defence and that is the reasonable opportunity that is contemplated under Rule 10(b). The animus imponentis behind Section 8-B of the Act and Rule 10 is to allow a person who may be prejudicially affected by the Commission's inquiry an opportunity to answer allegations, if any, against him. The person, therefore, without knowing what is the case, he is facing and what is the charge he is facing, what is the accusation and who has made the accusation cannot be expected to give evidence in his defence. Therefore, keeping the writ petitioner in dark and the materials in secrecy is not a fair procedure. The second respondent cannot drive the writ petitioner to go through the voluminous materials and retrieve the imputations made against the writ petitioner and then respond to the Questionnaire framed by the second respondent. This is certainly not fair opportunity and not at all a fair enquiry and therefore, violates Section 8-B of the Act and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This is certainly not fair opportunity and not at all a fair enquiry and therefore, violates Section 8-B of the Act and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. When the Rule states that the Commission shall give to the persons a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the inquiry and produce evidence in his defence, it means that all the evidences and the documents put against the persons covered under Section 8-B has to be furnished to him at the first instance to enable him to produce evidence in his defence. 34. Further, the Questionnaires which are nothing but interrogatories can only be given by the State and that too only after the State witnesses have been examined as contemplated under Rule 8 and after cross-examination by the persons called under Section 8-B. The power to issue interrogatories can be traced to Section 4 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 which empowers the Commission to exercise powers as that of a Civil Court conferred under the Code of Civil Procedure. Order XI, Rule 1 of CPC, states that interrogatories may be delivered by the plaintiffs or defendants only. When such interrogatories are given, the Code bestows a right to object under Rule VI to answer any interrogatories on the ground it is scandalous or irrelevant or is not for bona fide purposes relating to the subject matter of the suit or that sufficient materials are not available at that stage. 35. Any interrogatories under Order XI, Rule 7 may be set aside by the Court on the ground that they are unreasonable or vexatious or struck down on the ground that they are prolix, oppressive, unnecessary or scandalous. Therefore, the Court has the power to strike out interrogatories presented by one party. In the instant case, the second respondent himself has framed the Questionnaire thereby depriving the legal remedy of challenging the same. 36. Classifying the writ petitioner as a person covered under Section 8-B of the Act and issuance of summons without any materials is on the basis of the proceedings dated 26.6.2014, the existence of such proceedings dated 26.6.2014 itself is doubtful as it appears to be introduced to overcome the ground of bias against the second respondent raised in the earlier writ petition. Raising all these questions, WP No.7049 of 2015 is filed by the writ petitioner. Pleadings of the first respondent: 37. Raising all these questions, WP No.7049 of 2015 is filed by the writ petitioner. Pleadings of the first respondent: 37. The first respondent states that on instructions from the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the first respondent, the allegations that the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the first respondent undertook orally before this Court when WP No.25445 of 2014 came up for admission on 17.9.2014 to the effect that he would instruct the Commission of Inquiry not to proceed further with the hearing, is incorrect and there was no such undertaking given by the learned Senior Counsel before this Court at any point of time. The Commission of Inquiry has never approved the memo dated 9.10.2014 filed by the counsel for the writ petitioner, but has adjourned the proceedings for perusal of materials collected and therefore, it could not be construed that the Commission of Inquiry has accepted the contents in the said memo. Since in compliance of the interim orders of this Court made in WP No.25445 of 2014, on 17.9.2014, the Commission of Inquiry has directed the counsel for the writ petitioner to receive the Questionnaire. The averments contained in sub para 6(c) of the affidavit are incorrect and misleading. No doubt, the Questionnaire was made ready as early as on 27.10.2014 and not on 13.2.2015 as alleged by the writ petitioner. The Questionnaire was sent to the writ petitioner on 13.2.2015 itself by the Commission of Inquiry, the seal of the Commission of Inquiry was affixed displaying the date as 13.2.2015. The averments in sub para 6(d) that the pleadings have not been completed by the second respondent in WP No.25445 of 2014 are not correct since this Court did not order notice to the second respondent in the said writ petition. The first respondent has filed his counter affidavit on 27.10.2014 itself. Thus, the earlier writ petition WP No.25445 of 2014 is ripe for final disposal. 38. The first respondent states that there is nothing wrong in sending the Questionnaire to the writ petitioner himself as there is a direction by this Court to the said effect. Hence, the question of breach of undertaking does not arise at all. Thus, the earlier writ petition WP No.25445 of 2014 is ripe for final disposal. 38. The first respondent states that there is nothing wrong in sending the Questionnaire to the writ petitioner himself as there is a direction by this Court to the said effect. Hence, the question of breach of undertaking does not arise at all. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Commission of Inquiry has never given any undertaking to the effect that the Commission of Inquiry would not proceed further and therefore, recalling the order of the Commission of Inquiry does not arise at all. The first respondent states that the Commission of Inquiry is fact finding authority, appointed by the Government of Tamil Nadu vide G.O.M.No.1143, Public (Buildings) Department, dated 2.12.2011. The second respondent has discharged his statutory obligations and all proceedings initiated by the second respondent are well within the purview of the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and the Rules framed thereunder, since procedure framed by the second respondent is in accordance with the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and the Rules framed thereunder. 39. The counsel for the writ petitioner was allowed to peruse all the relevant documents for about five months on several dates between 11.00 A.M., and 4.00 P.M., in the Office of the Commissions of Inquiry, as per the convenience of the counsel. Hence, terming of the perusal of documents by the counsel as 'hurried inspection' is misconceived. Sufficient opportunity was given to the counsel for the writ petitioner. The question of supply of copies of documents to the writ petitioner does not arise at all unless the writ petitioner applied for furnishing of copies before the Office of Commission of Inquiry. The counsel for the writ petitioner has not yet applied for supply of copy of documents before the Office of the Commission of Inquiry. The averment that the Commission of Inquiry is a quasi judicial authority is squarely untenable in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is only a fact finding body (State of Karnataka vs. Union of India – AIR 1978 SC 68 ). The averment that the Commission of Inquiry is a quasi judicial authority is squarely untenable in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is only a fact finding body (State of Karnataka vs. Union of India – AIR 1978 SC 68 ). The allegations set out in paragraph 8 of the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner are false and vexatious since the Commission of Inquiry has never acted in a biased manner against the writ petitioner and the Commission of Inquiry is functioning within the purview of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. The Questionnaire was framed in accordance with the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and the Rules made thereunder and keeping in view the dictum laid down by several decisions of the High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appointment of Investigating Agency has been done with the concurrence of the State Government and the provision of Section 5-A of the Act, is not violated and therefore, the constitution of Investigating Agency is legal. The materials collected by the Investigating Agency and all acts done by them is in accordance with law and they could be relied upon for preparing report by the Commission of Inquiry. 40. It is on record that about 24 persons, who were the Government Servants were summoned under Section 8-B of the Act and those 24 persons were furnished with the Questionnaire and only after their response to the Questionnaire, it was decided to issue summons to the public servants, including the writ petitioner is misleading for the simple reason that in the order of the Commission of Inquiry, dated 26.6.2014, which is found in page 3 of the writ petitioner's typed set of papers, the reasons for summoning the persons under Section 8-B of the Act has been mentioned and further, it was decided on 26.6.2014 itself to issue summons to all the Government Servants/Public Servants, including the writ petitioner, under Section 8-B of the Act. Therefore, the allegation that Commission of Inquiry has summoned public servants viz., the writ petitioner after getting reply from the Government Servants is totally false and mischievous. Moreover, the writ petitioner's counsel was given full liberty and freedom to peruse all the documents connected with the proceedings since they are voluminous. Therefore, the allegation that Commission of Inquiry has summoned public servants viz., the writ petitioner after getting reply from the Government Servants is totally false and mischievous. Moreover, the writ petitioner's counsel was given full liberty and freedom to peruse all the documents connected with the proceedings since they are voluminous. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner inspected and examined the documents for several days in the Office of the Commissions of Inquiry. The allegation that the documents/materials were not furnished to the writ petitioner is untenable. If at all interested in getting the copies of documents, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner could have applied for certified copies of documents, but he has not done so. Preparation of Questionnaire and forwarding the same to the writ petitioner is illegal in view of the specific interim directions of this Court on 17.9.2014, it is submitted that in the interim order it is specifically directed that the Questionnaire can also be received by the counsel for the writ petitioner. 41. Rule 7 of Commissions of Inquiry (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1972, stipulates that the Commission of Inquiry shall issue a notice to every person to furnish information to the Commission and according to Rule 8, the Commission of Inquiry shall after examination of all statements furnished to it under Rule 7 considers, if necessary to record evidence, it shall record evidence. Therefore, option is left open with the Commission of Inquiry to record evidence. Since the Rules are silent with regard to not recording the evidence of persons who have sworn affidavits and after receipt of the same, whether the deponents are to be subjected to cross-examination etc., the Commission of Inquiry deemed it fit to frame Rules to that effect that those persons, who have not been examined orally are not liable to be cross-examined. Moreover, the persons summoned under Section 8-B of the Act, are not witnesses and mandate is cast upon the Commission to inquire into the conduct of any person summoned under Section 8-B of the Act under Rule 10(a). Hence, the Questionnaire was prepared based on the report of the Experts and other available documentary evidence. Moreover, the persons summoned under Section 8-B of the Act, are not witnesses and mandate is cast upon the Commission to inquire into the conduct of any person summoned under Section 8-B of the Act under Rule 10(a). Hence, the Questionnaire was prepared based on the report of the Experts and other available documentary evidence. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as several other Hon'ble High Courts have categorically held that in the absence of oral evidence, the persons called under Section 8-B of the Act, need not be given chance to cross-examine the deponents of the affidavits. 42. The Commission of Inquiry is a fact finding body constituted by the Government. Therefore, Commission of Inquiry could adopt its own procedure as per the Act and the Rules since the Act itself contemplates quick disposal of the subject matter under issue or otherwise, the object behind it might have been defeated. Rules have been followed scrupulously as the Investigating Agency have been directed to assist the Commission of Inquiry as per Section 5-A of the Act and after recording the statements of persons, who are acquainted with the facts and thereafter, the Commission of Inquiry received affidavits from them. After receiving the reports made by the Investigating Agency and the Engineering Experts, the Commission of Inquiry thought it fit not to examine them orally and therefore only after consideration of all the materials, issued summons to the persons under Section 8-B of the Act for inquiry. 43. Therefore, the question of permitting the recipients of the summons under Section 8-B of the Act, to test the deponents of affidavits in cross-examination does not arise at all. The Commission of Inquiry, after careful consideration of the evidence collected, came to a conclusion that the writ petitioner and other persons are to be called for inquiry under Section 8-B of the Act and since there is no oral examination of deponents, the Questionnaire was prepared and sent to the persons for their response. Hence, there is no illegality in it. Issuing a Questionnaire to the persons called upon under Section 8-B of the Act, is to inquire into the conduct of the person connected with the subject matter in question for their response. Hence, instead of asking them orally, Questionnaire is given. It is upto the recipients to answer it or deny it. Hence, there is no illegality in it. Issuing a Questionnaire to the persons called upon under Section 8-B of the Act, is to inquire into the conduct of the person connected with the subject matter in question for their response. Hence, instead of asking them orally, Questionnaire is given. It is upto the recipients to answer it or deny it. Accordingly, they were called upon to let in evidence in their defence. Hence, there is no illegality involved in it. 44. There is no provision to cross-examine the deponents of affidavits and there being no oral evidence recorded from them. The Commission of Inquiry is supposed to collect evidence and thereafter if it considers it necessary it can inquire into the conduct of any person. It is also empowered to issue summons/notice to such persons under Section 8-B of the Act. Hence, the allegation that evidence was collected behind the back of the writ petitioner is not correct and fallacious. 45. The incriminating circumstances are given to the writ petitioner in the form of Questionnaire for his response. It is upto the writ petitioner to read the Questionnaire carefully and then respond them and thereafter the writ petitioner can let in evidence in his defence. Hence, the allegation that the writ petitioner was kept in dark is illogical. Moreover, when the counsel for the writ petitioner have gone through the documents, perused relevant materials and evidence so far collected by the Commission of Inquiry, they could have rendered their assistance to the writ petitioner to answer the Questionnaire and it is for the writ petitioner to fairly concede to that fact. Had the writ petitioner or his counsel moved the Commission of Inquiry with necessary application for certified copies/documents could have been furnished to them on payment of costs, since documents are voluminous. 46. The Questionnaire contains all the relevant circumstances appearing against the writ petitioner and duty is cast upon the writ petitioner to answer them once the writ petitioner receives the summons/notice under Section 8-B of he Act. Thereafter, the writ petitioner can enter into his defence to rebut the allegations/ circumstances appearing against him in accordance with law. The importance of giving response to the interrogatories/Questionnaire is already been explained in the preceding paragraphs. Thereafter, the writ petitioner can enter into his defence to rebut the allegations/ circumstances appearing against him in accordance with law. The importance of giving response to the interrogatories/Questionnaire is already been explained in the preceding paragraphs. Moreover, the interrogatories are not given under Order XI, Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure, but they are framed under Section 8-B of the Act and in accordance with the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts for the speedy and effective conclusion of the inquiry. The procedure formulated by the Commission of Inquiry as early as on 5.6.2013 is very much in consonance with Section 8-C of the Act and the Rule 10 of Commissions of Inquiry (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1972 and therefore, it cannot be stated that they are not legal. The proceedings dated 26.6.2014 is very much in existence even before the filing of the writ petition by the writ petitioner and hence the allegation that it has been introduced after filing of the writ petition is incorrect and untenable. 47. It is stated by the first respondent that WP No.7049 of 2015, filed by the writ petitioner, is the second writ petition praying identical relief as that of the earlier writ petition viz., WP No.25445 of 2014. Pleadings of the second respondent: 48. In WP No.7049 of 2015, the second respondent has been impleaded in his personal capacity in view of the allegations set out in the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner. In this regard, the second respondent states that he was appointed by the Government of Tamil Nadu as One Man Commission of Inquiry vide G.O.Ms.No.1143, Public (Buildings) Department, dated 2.12.2011 to find out the irregularities in the construction of new Secretariat Building in Omandurar Government Estate, Chennai-600 002 and to submit his report covering the issues as follows:- (i) excess expenditure; (ii) causing loss to Exchequer; (iii) question of approval and clearance; (iv) inordinate delay; and (v) deficiency in standards. 49. The second respondent assumed office on the forenoon of 3.12.2011 and since then, discharging his duties and responsibilities as fact finding authority. 49. The second respondent assumed office on the forenoon of 3.12.2011 and since then, discharging his duties and responsibilities as fact finding authority. When earlier WP No.25445 of 2014 came up for admission before this Court by order dated 17.9.2014, this Court issued the following directions:- “(i) That the petitioner need not appear in person in response to the summons issued; and (ii) That even the Questionnaire is permitted to be received and filled up by the counsel who represent the petitioner.” Similarly, in WP Nos.26621 and 26622 of 2014, by order dated 7.10.2014, this Court issued the following directions:- “(i) The petitioners need not appear in person before the Commission, but they can be represented by counsel; (ii) Even the Questionnaire can also be received by the counsel for the petitioners.” 50. After the interim order has been passed on 17.9.2014, directing the writ petitioner to receive the Questionnaire, sufficient opportunity has been given to the writ petitioner for about five months, as per the request made by his counsel for perusal of all the documents available with the Commission of Inquiry, meaning thereby to facilitate to answer the Questionnaire issued to him. Only thereafter, as directed by this Court, given in the first set of writ petitions, the Questionnaires were directed to be issued by the Commission of Inquiry and since the same was refused to be accepted by the learned counsel, the Questionnaires were directed to be delivered through post to the writ petitioner by the Commission of Inquiry. 51. Though it has been specifically made known to the writ petitioner by the Commission of Inquiry that copies of all relevant documents will be furnished to the writ petitioner on payment of costs with necessary copy applications, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner have never filed even a single copy application, seeking for furnishing of any specific documents or affidavits. Instead, erroneous and false statements have been made before this Court by the writ petitioner while filing the second set of writ petitions, as if no opportunity was given by the Commission of Inquiry to the writ petitioner. 52. Instead, erroneous and false statements have been made before this Court by the writ petitioner while filing the second set of writ petitions, as if no opportunity was given by the Commission of Inquiry to the writ petitioner. 52. The inquiry was proceeded strictly in accordance with the provisions of Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and in compliance of the earlier directions given by this Court in the above said writ petitions, by issuing summons to the writ petitioner and by circulating the Questionnaire to the writ petitioner both by speed post and through special messenger on 13.2.2015 for his response, as was being done in respect of 24 Government Servants, the writ petitioner instead of giving his response either by self or through his counsel has come forward with WP No.7049 of 2015. 53. No bias can be attributed to the Commission of Inquiry by the writ petitioner since all proceedings conducted by the Commission of Inquiry right from the date of its commencement of inquiry are all transparent and well within the parameter of the provisions of Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. The Commission of inquiry as early as on 26.6.2014 decided to issue summons to all the Government Servants and public servants, including the writ petitioner under Section 8-B of the said Act and that the allegations made that the Commission of inquiry has decided to summon the writ petitioner only after getting reply from the Government Servants is totally false and incorrect. At the outset, the second respondent denied the contentions of bias raised by the writ petitioner. Pleadings of the third respondent: 54. The third respondent has stated that the writ petition is not maintainable. The Government of India appointed a Commission of Inquiry to inquire into the causes and circumstances leading to the alleged irregularities like excess expenditure, irregularities causing loss to the State Exchequer, whether all statutory approvals and clearances were obtained, inordinate delay and deficiency in standards of construction in the construction of new Secretariat Complex in Omandurar Government Estate, Chennai-2 vide G.O.(Ms.) No.530, Public (Buildings) Department, dated 22.6.2011. Subsequently, the Government passed G.O.(Ms.) No.1143, Public (Buildings) Department, dated 2.12.2011 appointing Hon'ble Justice Thiru R.Regupathi as Commission of Inquiry and the Hon'ble Judge has taken charge as Commission of Inquiry on 3.12.2011. Subsequently, the Government passed G.O.(Ms.) No.1143, Public (Buildings) Department, dated 2.12.2011 appointing Hon'ble Justice Thiru R.Regupathi as Commission of Inquiry and the Hon'ble Judge has taken charge as Commission of Inquiry on 3.12.2011. Now the Commission of Inquiry is conducting enquiry regarding the irregularities like excess expenditure causing loss to the State Exchequer and deficiency in standards of construction etc., in the construction of new Secretariat Complex in Omandurar Government Estate, Chennai-2. In this connection, it is submitted that the Commission has ample powers as defined in Sections 4 and 5 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. The Commission is independently functioning and there is no role of the Government to interfere in the administration of the Commission. Therefore, the third respondent is unnecessarily impleaded and further there is no specific allegation against the third respondent. 55. The writ petitioner has made allegations stating that the procedures have not been followed by the Commission which was appointed by the Government under G.O.(Ms.) No.1143, Public (Buildings) Department, dated 2.12.2011. As such the Commission's proceedings are as per the powers vested in the Commission. The allegation that appointment of the Investigating Agency without concurrence of the State Government in violation of Section 5-A of the Act is not correct and baseless. The Commission has ample powers under the said Act and also it is well within its power. The Commission can devise its own procedure and the same was also done by the Commission. Further, the contention of the writ petitioner that the Questionnaire can only be given by the State and that too after the State witnesses have been examined as contemplated under Rule 8 of the Commissions of Inquiry (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 1972, after cross examination by the persons called under Section 8-B of the said Act, is not correct and denied. 56. The writ petitioner has obtained an interim order to the effect that the Commission shall not proceed further with the matter till the writ petition is finally heard and disposed of. In this connection, it is pertinent to point out that because of the interim order, the Commission could not proceed further. The term of the Commission of Inquiry, as originally fixed, had come to an end and it has been extended from time to time in order to enable the Commission to complete the task assigned to it. In this connection, it is pertinent to point out that because of the interim order, the Commission could not proceed further. The term of the Commission of Inquiry, as originally fixed, had come to an end and it has been extended from time to time in order to enable the Commission to complete the task assigned to it. The very purpose of the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry will be defeated if the Commission does not complete the enquiry within the stipulated time. Thus the interim order granted on 12.3.2015 should be vacated, so as to enable the Commission to proceed further with the task assigned to it which would serve the larger public interest. 57. Following are the important issues/questions of larger public interest which all are to be decided even at the preliminary stage:- (i) If the State/third respondent is of an opinion that prima facie materials, records and evidences are available in respect of the irregularities, illegalities or corrupt activities in dealing with the public money, why the State has failed to launch appropriate criminal prosecution against the public servants, Government Officials and the persons concerned, against whom such evidences are available under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal and various other Penal Legislations ? (ii) Whether the State/third respondent is right in granting extension after extension of Commission of Inquiries periodically without even looking into the objectives and the purpose of such extension and without any application of mind ? (iii) Whether the State/third respondent is right in granting extensions of Commission of Inquiries in a routine manner and thereby causing great financial loss to the State Exchequer ? 58. The Member of the Commission of Inquiry appointed under the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 is defined as “public servants” under Section 10 of the Act. Thus, the duties, responsibilities and accountability of public servants are well enumerated under various provisions of law. Thus getting extension of Commission of Inquiry without any performance of duties and responsibilities are to be construed that the public servants acted unbecoming of public servants and thereby causing financial loss to the State Exchequer. 59. Thus, the duties, responsibilities and accountability of public servants are well enumerated under various provisions of law. Thus getting extension of Commission of Inquiry without any performance of duties and responsibilities are to be construed that the public servants acted unbecoming of public servants and thereby causing financial loss to the State Exchequer. 59. It is an admitted fact by the parties to the lis on hand that the State Investigating Agencies are utilised and the statements from many number of Government Officials were already obtained in respect of the allegations. This Court is surprised that why the State has not prosecuted the persons, who all are responsible for such offences under the penal provisions of law. Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and the precedents: 60. Now let us look into the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. Section 2(a) (i) and 2(a)(ii) of the Act, reads as under:- “2 (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: [Provided that in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, these clauses shall have effect subject to the modification that— (a) in sub-clause (i) thereof, for the words and figures “List I or List II or List III in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution”, the words and figures “List I or List III in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution as applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir” shall be substituted; (b) in sub-clause (ii) thereof, for the words and figures “List II or List III in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution”, the words and figures “List III in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution as applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir” shall be substituted;] (b) “Commission” means a Commission of Inquiry appointed under Section 3; (c) “prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Act.” 61. Section 3 of the Act provides appointment of Commission and the same reads as under:- “3. Section 3 of the Act provides appointment of Commission and the same reads as under:- “3. Appointment of Commission.—(1) (Save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (1 of 2014), 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 2[each House of Parliament or, as the case may be, the Legislature 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. (2) The Commission may consist of one or more members appointed by the appropriate Government, and where the Commission consists of more than one member, one of them may be appointed as the Chairman thereof. (3) The appropriate Government may, at any stage of an inquiry by the Commission fill any vacancy which may have arisen in the office of a member of the Commission (whether consisting of one or more than one member). (4) The appropriate Government shall cause to be laid before 2[each House of Parliament or, as the case may be, the Legislature of the State], the report, if any, of the Commission on the 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.]” 62. The scope and objects of the Act is that the Act lays down wide powers in the hands of the appropriate Governments. Through Section 3, it allows the appropriate Government to appoint a Commission on an opinion of necessity for matters of definite public interest. In order to regulate this power of the appropriate Government, it is submitted that interpreting the phrase 'definite matter of public importance' in Section 3 will be necessary. Consequently, due to the wide interpretational nature of the term, it is submitted that the actions taken under this Act must be scrutinized on a case by case basis. The discretionary power of the appropriate Government can still be tested under the grounds of Wednesbury principles and other tests of arbitrariness. 63. The object of the Act has been defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kehar Singh and Others vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in 1988 (3) SCC 609 . It concluded that the act was intended to cover matters of public importance, where it may be necessary for the Government to fix the responsibility on individuals or to kill harmful rumours. It observed that the ordinary law of the land may not fit in such cases apart from it being time consuming. 64. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ajay Singh and Others [ (1993) 1 SCC 302 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 18 of its judgment, held as under:- “18. The Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 is similar to and is modelled on the corresponding English statute which provides the historical background for the Indian statute. The purpose of such an enactment is aptly summarised in the speech of Lord Salmon on ‘Tribunals of Inquiry’ as under: “In all countries, certainly in those which enjoy freedom of speech and a free Press, moments occur when allegations and rumours circulate causing a nation-wide crisis of confidence in the integrity of public life or about other matters of vital public importance. No doubt this rarely happens, but when it does it is essential that public confidence should be restored, for without it no ? democracy can long survive. This confidence can be effectively restored only by thoroughly investigating and probing the rumours and allegations so as to search out and establish the truth. No doubt this rarely happens, but when it does it is essential that public confidence should be restored, for without it no ? democracy can long survive. This confidence can be effectively restored only by thoroughly investigating and probing the rumours and allegations so as to search out and establish the truth. The truth may show that the evil exists, thus enabling it to be rooted out, or that there is no foundation in the rumours and allegations by which the public has been disturbed. In either case, confidence is restored. How, in such circumstances, can the truth best be established?” It is for the purpose of ascertaining the truth in such circumstances that the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 has been enacted. While construing the provisions of the enactment, it would be useful to bear in mind its object if occasion arises for illumination of any grey areas with reference to the object of the enactment as a permissible aid to construction.” 65. The Apex Court looked to Lord Salmon’s speech on “Tribunals of Inquiry” in determining the object of the act. He observed that in certain circumstances, such as when allegations and rumours circulate causing a nation-wide crisis of confidence in the integrity of public life or about other matters of vital public importance, it is essential that public confidence should restored, in order to protect democracy. He further stated that only effective way to do so was to thoroughly investigate and probe such rumours and allegations to establish the truth. The Hon’ble apex Court concluded that the enactment of the Act was for the purpose of determining the truth in such circumstances. 66. The scope of the Act is also adjudicated by the Supreme Court in certain cases. Due to the wide scope for interpretation of the provisions of the Act, The Hon’ble Supreme Court has examined the scope of the application of the act in detail over the years. In the case of Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia and Others vs. Shri Justice S.R.Tendolkar and Others [ AIR 1958 SC 538 ], it is observed that “even acts or conduct of individual could assume such dangerous proportions, that they could be considered matters of definite public importance. In the case of Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia and Others vs. Shri Justice S.R.Tendolkar and Others [ AIR 1958 SC 538 ], it is observed that “even acts or conduct of individual could assume such dangerous proportions, that they could be considered matters of definite public importance. It went to note that the appropriate government was the best judge of the reliability of its source of information and if it acted in good faith on that information, the Court, not being in possession of all the facts, would be slow to adjudge the executive action as being bad or illegal”. It observed that though very wide powers had been bestowed, it could not deny the existence of those powers on the bare possibility of that they could be misused. It also noted that if there was evidence of misuse, the Court had the power to strike down the illegal action. 67. In the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad [ AIR 1967 SC 122 ], the Court noted that acts of Minister, while in office, do not cease to be matters of public importance after he ceases to hold office, i.e. their character does not change. In this case, the allegations that the Minister had acquired vast wealth by abuse of his official position was held be a matter of definite public importance. The petitioner’s contention that the object of the inquiry, which was to gather material for prosecution of the minster was not a matter of public importance was rejected by stating that it was of public importance to reveal the lapses on the part of ministers and that they face the consequences of their actions. 68. In the case of P.V.Jagannath Rao and Others vs. State of Orissa and Others [ AIR 1969 SC 215 ], it is observed that where the object of the enquiry was to take appropriate legislative of administrative measures to maintain the purity and integrity of political administration in the state, it would be considered a valid exercise of statutory power and falls within the ambit of Section 3 of the Act. In another instance, the Delhi High Court in ILR (1974) 1 DEL 847 noted that the object of constituting a Commission of Inquiry under the act is to enable the Government to make up its mind as to what legislative or administrative measures should be adopted to either eradicate the evil found or to implement the beneficial objects it has in view. As such, the committee is only a fact-finding body. 69. The Court in the former case above also observed that it was settled position in law that exercise of power for a purpose not authorised by the law in action of the statutory authority would be ultra vires. However, it also examined the quandary as to what legal position would be if an administrative authority acted both for an authorised purpose and for an unauthorised purpose. It arrived at the conclusion that the validity of such an administrative act would be determined by the dominant purpose for which the administrative power is exercised. It referred to the English Case, Rex vs. Brighton Corporation ex parte Shoosmith to arrive at this conclusion. 70. Examining the nature of the discretionary power granted to the Appropriate Government the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in Sushil Chandra Chowdhury vs. Chakraborty Commission of Inquiry (27 Mar, 1980) noted that where a power conferred is on the formation of opinion about the investigation of matter of public importance, then the grounds or materials necessary for the formation of the opinion must exist. It also questioned whether materials subsequently gathered could be said to be materials which were there, before the State Government acted to form the opinion on which the Commission was constituted. It concluded in the negative, holding that in such case, the exercise of power would not be valid. 71. In an important case of Sanjiv Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Others [ (2005) 5 SCC 517 ], the Apex Court discussed the nature of inquiries which are suitable under the act. It came to the conclusion that Commissions of Inquiry are not suitable to investigate corruption or to bring the guilty to book. It observed that are more suited toward inquiring into such matters of public importance where the purpose is to find the truth so that lessons could be learned for the future, and policies and legislation could be framed to avoid recurring lapses. It observed that are more suited toward inquiring into such matters of public importance where the purpose is to find the truth so that lessons could be learned for the future, and policies and legislation could be framed to avoid recurring lapses. The Apex Court noted the following flaws with Commissions of inquiry:- (1) They do not have enough teeth and depend on assistance of the appropriate Government to function. Consequently, they remain pending for unreasonable amounts of time. (2) The appropriate Government is not bound to act on the report of the Commission, and as such these reports do not serve any actual purpose. Whether any action is actually taken seems to depend on political consideration, rather than public good. Public memory also fades by the time these reports are delivered. 72. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment of the Supreme Court (cited supra), read as under:- “13. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the respondents' proposal for entrusting the whole matter to a Commission of Inquiry, assisted by a special investigating task force. The flaw with Commissions of Inquiry, as revealed by experience, is that they do not have enough teeth and for their functioning they have to depend on the State's assistance. Commissions of Inquiry remain pending for unreasonable lengths of time. The reports submitted do not bind the State and in spite of transparency and public hearings which the Commissions often hold, at times with fanfare, the reports hardly serve any purpose. By the time the reports are submitted the public memory has already fainted and people are not any more bothered about the results. It is in the discretion of the State to take or not to take any action on the report submitted by the Commission of Inquiry and the experience is that the follow-up action depends more on political considerations rather than for public good. 14. We feel, Commissions of Inquiry are more suited for inquiring into such matters of public importance where the purpose is to find out the truth so as to learn lessons for the future and devise policies or frame legislation to avoid recurrence of lapses. Such Commissions do not suitably serve the object of punishing the guilty.” 73. This Court cannot brush aside certain vital issues arising from and out of the Commission of Inquiries. 74. Such Commissions do not suitably serve the object of punishing the guilty.” 73. This Court cannot brush aside certain vital issues arising from and out of the Commission of Inquiries. 74. As stated supra with reference to certain judgments delivered by the Apex Court, a Commission is a mere fact find body appointed by the Government for its information. In the words of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia and Others vs. Shri Justice S.R.Tendolkar and Others [ AIR 1958 SC 538 ], it reads as under:- “The Commission has no power of adjudication in the sense of passing an order which can be enforced proprio vigore. A clear distinction must, on the authorities, be drawn between a decision which, by itself, has no force and no penal effect and a decision which becomes enforceable immediately or which may become enforceable by some action being taken. Therefore, as the Commission we are concerned with 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...” 75. In the case of Puhupram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1968) M.P.L.J. 629], the Court held as follows:- “A similar question was raised before the Madhya Pradesh High Court on behalf of the petitioners. It was contended that as they were being prosecuted under sections 148, 149, 120B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 for the alleged offences committed by them during the course of disturbances, the commission of inquiry might be restrained from proceeding ahead with the inquiry because the subject matter of the inquiry and the criminal proceedings being the same, it would seriously prejudice their trial for the offences alleged and influence the witnesses who might give evidence at the trial and also be compelled to make statements before the commission which might later be used against them in criminal trial. The court rejected these contentions of the petitioners on the ground that "the apprehension felt by the petitioners was unfounded and based on a total misconception of the purpose and scope of the enquiry entrusted to the Commission." It observed that whereas the inquiry in question was to investigate the circumstances leading to the happenings of 19 and 20 January 1968 with special reference to the past history of the area and the incidents within the last 15 years, such an inquiry could have no bearing whatsoever on any of the issues or questions that might arise for determination in the trial of the petitioners for offences under the provisions of the Penal Code.” 76. The Courts have held that the Commission of Inquiry should not be appointed to find out the truth of the same matter which the Criminal Court already seized of. 77. The controversy was also raised before P. Jaganmohan Reddy Commission of Inquiry regarding Bansi Lal, former Chief Minister of Haryana and Defence Minister of the Government of India, during the course of its proceedings. It was contended by the counsel of Bansi Lal that in respect of some of the allegations mentioned in the annexure to the notification dated 14 June 1977 constituting the commission, prosecutions had already been launched by the State of Haryana. Therefore, either those prosecutions should be stayed or the inquiry by the commission in respect of those very allegations should not proceed.26 He forcefully raised the following arguments in support of his contention: 78. First, as the terms of reference and the offences alleged were identical, there would be parallel inquiries in respect of the same matter. This would cause prejudice to the accused and not make the proceedings before the commission itself either free, fair or just. Further, the extraordinary publicity that was being given to the proceedings before the commission would prejudice the criminal proceedings and deny to the accused a fair trial. Second, the accused who need not speak in a criminal trial till the prosecution evidence is completed and could benefit by the weakness of the prosecution case would be compelled to disclose his defence in proceedings before the commission on pain of adverse inference being drawn if he were to be silent. If he succeeds before the commission, it would enable the prosecution to plug the loopholes in a criminal trial and cause irreparable prejudice. If he succeeds before the commission, it would enable the prosecution to plug the loopholes in a criminal trial and cause irreparable prejudice. Third, a criminal court will considerably be influenced by the report of the commission which is ordinarily headed by a Judge of the Higher Court to enquire into matters referred to that commission. On the analogy of the English Act, it was never the intention that under the Act, criminal cases should be investigated by the commission. Fourth, the accused in the criminal proceedings would be conscious of the jeopardy and suffer from fear of facing criminal trial in respect of the same matter before the commission of inquiry and consequently would not be able to take an uninhibited part in the proceedings before the commission which, in the circumstances, cannot be said to be free or fair. 79. After surveying the whole case law on the subject, the commission rejected the contentions on the basis of the law as it stood then. But in the concluding chapter XIV "General Remarks and Suggestions" of the report, the commission suggested amendment to the Act to exclude from the purview of the commission of inquiry matters which are pending before the Criminal Courts or matters in respect of which investigations have already commenced due to the hardship caused or likely to be caused to the witnesses and the accused. According to the commission, a matter which can be inquired into by the normal government agencies of investigation and put for trial should not be the subject matter of inquiry under the Act. Indeed if such a matter is referred to a commission set up under the Act, it should be withdrawn when it comes to notice that the matter is ripe for being put up before a court of law or when an FIR is filed by the government about matters wholly or partly before the commission or where such an FIR has already been filed. The process of investigation should not be stopped either by referring the matter to the commission or by not withdrawing it from the commission to enable the matter to proceed. Nor should the inquiry into such a matter by the normal agencies of the government be held up or kept in abeyance simply on the plea that the matter has been referred to a commission of inquiry. 80. Nor should the inquiry into such a matter by the normal agencies of the government be held up or kept in abeyance simply on the plea that the matter has been referred to a commission of inquiry. 80. It is highly desirable that the parallel proceedings should be avoided as far as possible. The Shah Commission of Inquiry had suspended its proceedings when Indira Gandhi was arrested and criminal proceedings were initiated against her. It was only after the commission was satisfied that the inquiry and the criminal case did not relate to the same matter that it resumed the proceedings. Similarly, Justice P. Chakrabarti, retired chief justice of the Calcutta High Court, had refused to head an inquiry in the Sain Bari murder case under the Act because criminal proceedings had already been Started in regard to this case in the Court. Constitutional Perspectives: 81. Article 38(2) of the Constitution of India, enumerates that the State shall, in particular, strive to minimise the inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations. 82. Article 39(c) enumerates that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment. 83. Thus, the Constitutional Perspectives are unambiguous and the Makers of the Constitution also intended to emphasis that the State is not supposed to spent money unnecessarily and every rupee of the tax payers money must be spent judiciously and in the interest of public and for the welfare of the people. It is duty mandatory on the part of the State to establish that the public money is not wasted and spent usefully for the welfare and development of our Great Nation. Undoubtedly, the Constitution reiterates under various circumstances that the State has to spent the revenue of the Exchequer judiciously and meaningfully in the interest of public administration and for the development of our Great Nation. Such being the Constitutional Perspectives, this Court is bound to examine the purpose, usefulness, and the public interest involved by appointing many number of Commissions of Inquiry and ultimately yielded no fruitful results, nor the Government is initiating any steps or corrective measures from and out of such reports of the Commissions of Inquiry. 84. Such being the Constitutional Perspectives, this Court is bound to examine the purpose, usefulness, and the public interest involved by appointing many number of Commissions of Inquiry and ultimately yielded no fruitful results, nor the Government is initiating any steps or corrective measures from and out of such reports of the Commissions of Inquiry. 84. To substantiate this, on a perusal of the details of Commissions of Inquiries, this Court is of an opinion that Justice Thiru S.R.Singharavelu Commission of Inquiry was appointed on 8.7.2013. However, it is stated by the third respondent that the Commission has completed its inquiry and the report is under compilation. If the Commission is functioning for five years in respect of a single murder case and related issues, this Court is of an opinion that the cost of the Commission of Inquiry spent as on 31.7.2018 is Rs.2,08,50,828/-. This Court is unable to understand what lesson the State is going to learn from and out of the said report. After the appointment of the above Commission, there were several such similar cases of murder were registered. 85. Justice Thiru S.Rajeswaran Commission of Inquiry is functioning from 31.1.2017. Almost 1-1/2 years completed, the 'Jallikattu' also restored and conducted in January 2018 in many villages in the State of Tamil Nadu. Thus, the inquiry report ought to have been submitted by this time and the amount of Rs.1,47,09,265/- as on 31.7.2018 had already been spent by the State. Thus, the State should request the Commission of Inquiry to conclude the same within a short span of period. However, in respect of other Commissions, the same are functioning for few months. Thus, this Court is of an opinion that an outer time limit is to be fixed for completion of inquiry and submissions of report by these Commissions in order to avoid wrongful financial loss to the State Exchequer. 86. Let us now look into the legal principles settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of directive principles under the Constitution. 87. The expenditure of tax payer money being an administrative act is subject to the Wednesbury tests of unreasonableness and other tests of arbitrariness. 86. Let us now look into the legal principles settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of directive principles under the Constitution. 87. The expenditure of tax payer money being an administrative act is subject to the Wednesbury tests of unreasonableness and other tests of arbitrariness. In the case of Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Another [ 1980 (4) SCC 1 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India noted that where any Governmental action fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness and public interest, it would be liable to be struck down as invalid. Consequently, it follows that the Government cannot act in a manner that would benefit a private party at the cost of the State which would be both unreasonable and contrary to public interest. 88. In the case of Common Cause vs. Union of India [ (2015) 7 SCC 1 ], the Apex Court narrated the principles in paragraph 9, which is extracted hereunder:- “9. Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution enjoin upon the State a duty to consistently endeavour to achieve social and economic justice to the teeming millions of the country who even today live behind an artificially drawn poverty line. What can be the surer way in the march forward than by ensuring avoidance of unproductive expenditure of public funds. This is how we view the present matter and feel the necessity of exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to proceed further.” 89. In the case of Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Another [ 1980 (4) SCC 1 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:- “(5) Where any governmental action fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness and public interest and is found to be wanting in the qualities of reasonableness or lacking in the element of public interest, it would be liable to be struck down as invalid. It must follow as a necessary corollary from this proposition that the Government cannot act in a manner which would benefit a private party at the cost of the State; such an action would be both unreasonable and contrary to public interest. It must follow as a necessary corollary from this proposition that the Government cannot act in a manner which would benefit a private party at the cost of the State; such an action would be both unreasonable and contrary to public interest. The Government, therefore, cannot, for example, give a contract or sell or lease-out its property for a consideration less than the highest that can be obtained for it, unless of course there are other considerations which render it reasonable and in public interest to do so. Such considerations may be that some Directive Principle is sought to be advanced or implemented or that the contract or the property is given not with a view, to earning revenue but for the purpose of carrying out a welfare scheme for the benefit of a particular group or section of people deserving it or that the person who has offered a higher consideration is not otherwise fit to be given the contract at the property. These considerations are referred to only illustratively for there may be an infinite variety of considerations which may have to be taken into account by the Government in formulating its policies and it is on a total evaluation of various considerations which have weighed with the Government in taking a particulars action, that the Court would have to decide whether the action of the Government is reasonable and in public interest. [1357 A-E] 90. A conjoint reading of the provisions of the Act and the spirit of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is crystal clear that in an inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, however, there is no plaintiff or prosecutor, there is no defendant or accused and there is no lis or charge to be adjudicated upon by the Commission by a judgment or order, which will be binding and enforceable. In short, the Commission is not expected and, indeed, is not competent to finally adjudicate upon any issue or charge or pronounce any judgment or order, which will be binding and enforceable. 91. In short, the Commission is not expected and, indeed, is not competent to finally adjudicate upon any issue or charge or pronounce any judgment or order, which will be binding and enforceable. 91. The rationale and utility of the device of the Commission of Inquiry has been well argued by Lord Chancellor Viscount Kilmuir while defending in the House of Lords the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, 1921, on which our Act is modelled, during the debate on the Waters Tribunal in 1959: “Let me state quite shortly the argument for some such procedure as the present. The sanction of the public inquiry is necessary on occasions for the purpose of maintaining a high standard of public administration and, indeed, of public life.” 92. The Supreme Court of India also has explained the importance of the findings of the Commission of Inquiry in Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs. Justice S.R.Tendolkar and others. Thus, “The whole purpose of setting up a Commission of Inquiry consisting of Experts will be frustrated and the elaborate process of inquiry will be deprived of its utility if the opinion and advice of the expert body as to the measures the situation disclosed calls for cannot be placed before the Government for consideration notwithstanding that doing so cannot be to the prejudice of anybody because it has no force of its own. In our view, the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry are of great importance to the Government in outer to enable it to make up its mind as to what legislative and administrative measures should be adopted to eradicate the evil found or to implement the beneficial objects it has in view”. 93. These are fine principles and no one can dispute them. But for the particular purpose of unearthing corrupt practices, these methods are unsuited. This is affirmed by the Santhanam Committee on Corruption. It is not suggested that public inquiries are without value. They are an elaborate and expensive procedure. 94. In respect of appointment of Retired Judges as Members of the Commission of Inquiry, the Constitution does not specifically bar the Judges from taking up any post-retirement assignment, but there have been suggestions that there should be a minimum cooling period between retirement and a new assignment to prevent conflict of interest. These posts are generally constitutional or of quasi-judicial bodies, whose law mandates that only Retired Judges can occupy them. These posts are generally constitutional or of quasi-judicial bodies, whose law mandates that only Retired Judges can occupy them. According to a study done by the Legal Think Tank, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, it says that there are several reasons why Retired Apex Court Judges are appointed to these posts, usually by the Central and State Governments. One of them is that the Statutes of these bodies have laid down that only candidates with specific qualifications will be considered. At least 56% of the appointments were made because they were required by law, the report says, implying a structural problem. 95. Our former Chief Justice of India Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M.Lodha, who was of the view that Judges should not take post-retirement Government posts for at least two years of demitting Office, had suggested that before a Judge retires, the Government should ask him whether he wanted to be a pensioner or continue to draw his existing salary. Once he opts for pension, he is out and can do what he wants, but not any engagement or post under the Government. Once you have opted for full salary, that name should be put in a panel. When a vacancy arises, appoint the man in consultation with the Chief Justice of India, who can be appointed with the Government's consultation, and this way all allegations of appeasement, favouritism, allegations that somebody was trying for a post will come to an end. Justice Lodha had also pointed out that since Statutes of some Tribunals and Quasi-Judicial Bodies mandate the appointment of Retired Judges, the practice would have to continue unless the laws were amended or some other method was found. 96. The First Law Commission in its Fourteenth Report considered the question of the Supreme Court Judges taking up employment under the State or the Union after retirement. The Commission was of the view that it was necessary to safeguard the independence of the Supreme Court Judges by enacting a law barring further employment except as ad hoc Judges of the Supreme Court under Article 128. 97. The Commission had, after careful consideration expressed the unanimous view that the practice of Judges looking forward to or accepting employment under the Government after retirement was undesirable as it could affect the independence of the Judiciary. 97. The Commission had, after careful consideration expressed the unanimous view that the practice of Judges looking forward to or accepting employment under the Government after retirement was undesirable as it could affect the independence of the Judiciary. Therefore, it is recommended that a constitutional bar should be imposed on Judges accepting office under the Union or State Governments similar to the bar in the case of the Auditor and Comptroller-General and Members of Public Service Commissions. 98. The word “act” in Article 124(7) means only acting as a judge as it is preceded by the word “plead”. Similarly, Article 220 says that “person who, after the commencement of this Constitution, has held office as a permanent Judge of a High Court shall plead or act in any Court or before any authority in India except the Supreme Court and the other High Courts”. But it is surprising that some Statutes explicitly provide that only a retired Supreme Court Judge is to be appointed to the judicial positions under them. This proposition is against Article 124(7). Thus, under the National Human Rights Commission, the Commission Chairperson and the Member, previously the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Judge of the Supreme Court respectively, will have to approach the Supreme Court or the High Court for directions, orders or writs, which will be issued only if those Courts deemed it necessary. This is also not a happy position in law. 99. The retirement age in the National Consumer Commission is 70 years. Similarly, the retirement age in the National Human Rights Commission is also 70 years. Under Article 124(2), a Judge of the Supreme Court shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-five years. So if a Supreme Court Chief Justice or Justice goes for further employment, it could be only for five years. However, it is felt that the lease of life for another five years (65 to 70) would certainly affect the independence of the Judiciary, which is a basic feature of the Constitution. Article 124(7) is to be considered a salutary provision. It is worth noting that a Judge of the Supreme Court also takes an oath to protect the Constitution. Hence, Retired Judges, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court have a duty to respect their oath, which means not to act in violation of the Constitution. 100. Article 124(7) is to be considered a salutary provision. It is worth noting that a Judge of the Supreme Court also takes an oath to protect the Constitution. Hence, Retired Judges, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court have a duty to respect their oath, which means not to act in violation of the Constitution. 100. This Court is of an opinion that Section 10 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, denotes that Members, etc., to be Public Servants. Every member of the Commission and every Officer appointed or authorised by the Commission in exercise of functions under this Act shall be deemed to be a Public Servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code defines “Public Servants” as under:- “21. "Public Servant" -- The words "public servant' denote a person falling under any of the descriptions hereinafter following; namely:- Second- Every Commissioned Officer in the Military, Naval or Air Forces of India; Third- Every Judge including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether by himself or as a member of any body of persons, any adjudicatory functions;] Fourth.-Every officer of a Court of Justice (including a liquidator, receiver or commissioner) whose duty it is as such officer, to investigate or report on any matter of law or fact, or to make, authenticate, or keep any document, or to take charge or dispose of any property, or to execute any judicial process, or to administer any oath, or to interpret, or to preserve order in the Court, and every person specially authorized by a Court of Justice to perform any of such duties; Fifth. - Every juryman, assessor, or member of a panchayat assisting a Court of Justice or public servant; Sixth- Every arbitrator or other person to whom any cause or matter has been referred for decision or report by any Court of Justice, or by any other competent public authority; Seventh- Every person who holds any office by virtue of which he is empowered to place or keep any person in confinement; Eighth- Every officer of the Government whose duty it is, as such officer, to prevent offences, to give information of offences, to bring offenders to justice, or to protect the public health, safety or convenience; Ninth- Every officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or. expend any property on behalf of the Government, or to make any survey, assessment or contract on behalf of the Government, or to execute any revenue process, or to investigate, or to report, on any matter affecting the pecuniary interests of the Government, or to make, authenticate or keep any document relating to the pecuniary interests of the Government, or to prevent the infraction of any law for the protection of the pecuniary interests of the Government ; Tenth- Every officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property, to make any survey or assessment or to levy any rate or tax for any secular common purpose of any village, town or district, or to make, authenticate or keep any document for the ascertaining of the rights of the people of any village, town or district; Eleventh- Every person who holds any office in virtue of which he is empowered to prepare, publish, maintain or revise an electoral roll or to conduct an election or part of an election; Twelfth- Every person- (a) in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government; (b) in the service or pay of a local authority, a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956).]” 101. Section 23 of the Indian Penal Code defines “wrongful loss” is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled. 102. Section 23 of the Indian Penal Code defines “wrongful loss” is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled. 102. Section 24 of the Indian Penal Code defines "Dishonestly" as whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly". 103. The word 'Person” has been defined under Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code as the word "person" includes any Company or Association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not. 104. The word “Public” is defined under Section 12 of the Indian Penal Code as "public" includes any class of the public or any community. 105. The word “Government” is defined under Section 17 as the word "Government" denotes the Central Government or the Government of a State. 106. On a perusal of Section 10 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and the definition of Section 21 and other definitions, as cited supra, this Court is of an opinion that any public servant cannot function as a public servant and draw salary from the State Government Exchequer if he is not performing his duties and responsibilities. This Court is of a strong opinion that a public servant has to perform his duties and responsibilities and if there are no duties and responsibilities are performed by the public servants knowing that there is no works to be performed, then it is to be construed as an unlawful gain and unlawful loss. It is an unlawful gain to the public servant and the unlawful loss to the State Exchequer. Thus, every public servant in the event of non-availability of any work in a particular department or in a particular organisation of the Government or the State, then he must be immediately deputed to any other department or any other Government organisation for the purpose of performing his work. Contrarily, the State in the event of allowing such public servants to remain without job and paying salary will certainly amounts to the State failing in its duties to protect the State Exchequer. It should be construed as a financial loss to the State Exchequer. “No Work, No Pay” principle also to be applied. 107. Thus, the State failed in its duty to honour the constitutional perspectives in respect of protecting the State finance. It should be construed as a financial loss to the State Exchequer. “No Work, No Pay” principle also to be applied. 107. Thus, the State failed in its duty to honour the constitutional perspectives in respect of protecting the State finance. Thus, every rupee of tax payers' money must be spent judiciously by the State. It is the duty mandatory on the part of the Executives to ensure that the tax payers' money is protected in all respects and spent judiciously for the welfare and the development of our Great Nation. In the event of not protecting the financial resources of the State by the Executives, all such Executives are responsible and liable for prosecution as well as the Officials are to be booked under the Service Rules concerned for committing the act of misconduct by causing financial loss to the State Exchequer. Thus, allowing a Commission to remain defunct and non-functional and paying salary and meeting out the establishment expenditures are certainly the wrongful loss to the State Exchequer. 108. Even in these cases, if at all the Commission of Inquiry was unable to function on account of the interim stay granted by this Court, the duty of the State is to ensure that the Commission of Inquiry is suspended for such a period during which the Commission was unable to function. In other words, when the stay was granted by this Court in a writ petition, then an interim suspension of the Commission of Inquiry shall be proceeded with by the State till the further orders to be passed by this Court. Contrarily, the State allowing the Commission to remain non-functional and paying salary and the establishment expenditures from and out of the State Exchequer, which is to be construed that the authorities competent in this regard have miserably failed in their duties to protect the tax payers' money and they are certainly accountable in respect of such financial losses to the State Exchequer. 109. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P.K.Chinnasamy vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others [ AIR 1988 SC 78 ], held as under:- “4. In a democratic polity as ours, the bureaucracy works as the pivot for running the administration. 109. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P.K.Chinnasamy vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Others [ AIR 1988 SC 78 ], held as under:- “4. In a democratic polity as ours, the bureaucracy works as the pivot for running the administration. So far as the State is concerned, matters of policy and the ultimate responsibility for running the administration is obviously on the apex body-the Council of Ministers and the Executive Head-the Governor. It cannot be lost sight of that every public officer is a trustee and in respect of the office he holds and the salary and other benefits which he draws, he is obliged to render appropriate service to the State. The scheme postulates that every public officer has to be given some posting commensurate to his status and circumstances should be so created that he would be functioning so as to render commensurate service in lieu of the benefits received by him from the State. If an officer does not behave as required of him under the law he is certainly liable to be punished in accordance with law but it would ordinarily not be appropriate to continue an officer against a post and provide no work to him and yet pay him out of the Consolidated Fund. It is with this view that we had called upon the respondent-Government to give the appellant a proper posting and extract work from him. Since the State Government has not done the needful, it has become necessary for the Court to interfere. Ordinarily in a case of this type, the Court would have no role to play.” 110. The statement now produced by the learned Advocate General in respect of expenditures incurred for the functioning of the Commissions of Inquiry, this Court is of an opinion that the State is bound to review all such Commissions of Inquiries which all are functioning for long duration and take appropriate steps to fix an outer time limit, so as to ensure that the reports are submitted in time or if the State is of the opinion that the further continuance of these Commissions of Inquiries would not serve any purpose, then the State is at liberty to wind up all such Commissions of Inquiries which will not serve the purpose and the objectives set out in the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. 111. 111. The State has failed in its duty to monitor the functioning of the Commissions of Inquiry. Periodical monitoring and proper suggestions to the Commission of Inquiry to conclude the same ought to have been issued. Undoubtedly, the Commission of Inquiry is functioning independently. However, the State is parting with the tax payers money. Thus the State has got every authority and duty to remind or suggest members and the officials of the Commission of Inquiry to ensure that the exercise is done within a reasonable period of time and as per the time limits fixed by the State in this regard. The State need not interfere with the functioning of the Commission of Inquiry. However, the time limit fixed by the State for conclusion is to be considered by the Commission of Inquiry consciously and considering the factor that they are the public servants and performing the duties and the responsibilities under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and further they are accountable and answerable to the public at large. Thus, this Court is bound to draw a factual inference that the Commissions of Inquiries are extended from time to time in certain cases without proper evaluation and without considering all the necessary factors. The Government is bound to make assessment in respect of the public services performed by the public servants, who all are authorised to perform the public duties. Thus, there is nothing wrong on the part of the State to remind or suggest the Member and the officials of the Commission of Inquiry that the exercise of submitting a report on facts are to be submitted within the time limit fixed by the State. Extension of time is to be granted in a judicious manner and by evaluating the circumstances and the necessity. 112. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.530, Public (Buildings) Department, dated 22.6.2011 constituted Justice Thiru S.Thangaraj Commission of Inquiry and consequent on the resignation of Hon'ble Justice Thiru S.Thangaraj from the post of Commission of Inquiry on 22.11.2011, as Hon'ble Justice Thiru R.Regupathi was appointed as Commission of Inquiry on 3.12.2011. As requested by the Commission of Inquiry, the Government extend the period of Commission of Inquiry from time to time. The term of the Commission of Inquiry has lastly been extended for three months i.e., upto 21.10.2018. Hence, the Commission of Inquiry is functioning for a period of 88 months. 113. As requested by the Commission of Inquiry, the Government extend the period of Commission of Inquiry from time to time. The term of the Commission of Inquiry has lastly been extended for three months i.e., upto 21.10.2018. Hence, the Commission of Inquiry is functioning for a period of 88 months. 113. The following details are provided in respect of the progress of the Commissions and other details by the learned Advocate General:- “Justice Thiru.R.Regupathi Commission of Inquiry (Constituted to inquire into the alleged irregularities in the construction of new Secretariat Complex in Omandurar Government Estate, Chennai) 1. How many commissions are existing as on date? 5(five) 2. How Long the Commissions are working? In G.O.ms.No.530, Public(Buildings) Department, dated 22.6.2011, the Government constituted Justice Thiru S. Thangaraj Commission of Inquiry and Consequent on the resignation of Hon'ble Justice Thiru S.Thangaraj from the post of Commission of Inquiry on 22.11.2011, Hon'ble Justice Thiru R.Regupathi was appointed as Commission of Inquiry on 03.12.2011. As requested by the Commission of Inquiry, the Government extend the period of Commission of Inquiry from time to time. The term of the Commission of Inquiry has lastly been extended for 3 months i.e., upto 21.10.2018. Hence the Commission of Inquiry is function for a period of 88 months. 3. What is the progress of the Commissions for the purpose which they were appointed? It is submitted that the Commission of Inquiry appointed an Investigating Agency headed by Tmt.S.Mallikha, I.P.S., Superintendent of Police, E.O.W. Headquarters, Chennai, and a team of Police Personnel, have been appointed on 28.11.2011 to assist the Investigating Agency. The Investigating Agency has conducted investigation and submitted its report to the Commission of Inquiry on 10.04.2014. The Commission of Inquiry has also appointed a team of Technical Experts from Anna University who were appointed to assist the Investigating Agency for examinations of the “Foundation Design, Structural Stability, Architectural design, Foundations design, Quality of construction, Utility of Materials, Cost analysis and geotechnical design” of the newly constructed Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Complex, Omandurar Government Estate, Chennai – 2 and submit their reports to the Commission of Inquiry. It is further submitted that on perusal of the Government Orders, other documentary materials, affidavits filed by the various persons, Reports of the Investigating Agency as well as Reports of the Panel of Technical Experts of Anna University, the Commission of Inquiry issued summons under section 8B of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 to 24 Government Servants for answering the questionnaire relating to the construction of New Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Complex in Omandurar Government Estate, Chennai – 2. Subsequently, Summons were sent to the three Public Servants viz. Thiru M.Karunanidhi, Former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Thiru M.K.Stalin, Former Deputy Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and Thiru. Duraimurugan, Former Minister of Public Works Department, for answering the questionnaire relating to the construction of new Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, Chennai – 2. In the meanwhile, three Writ petitions, in W.P.Nos.25445, 26621 and No.26622 of 2014 have been filed by Thiru M.Karunanidhi the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Thiru M.K.Stalin, the former Deputy Chief Minister and Minister for Local Administration and Thiru.Duraimurugan, the former Minister for Public Works Department respectively. Challenging among others, the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1143, Public(Buildings) Department, dated 02.12.2011 before the Hon'ble High Court, Madras. The Counter affidavits were filed by the Commission of Inquiry on 27.10.2014 and by the Government on 19.12.2014. Subsequently, the former Chief Minister has filed another Writ Petition No.7049 of 2015 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, praying, among other things, to issue a Writ or order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records including the Questionnaire framed by the Hon'ble Commission of Inquiry and to quash the same and to stay all further proceedings of the Commission of Inquiry. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in its Interim Order dated 12.03.2015, among other things, ordered that “ Commission shall not proceed further with the matter till the Writ Petitions are finally heard and disposed of”. The Counter Affidavit has been filed by the Commission of Inquiry on 21.07.2015. Similarly, Thiru M.K.Stalin, former Deputy Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, has filed W.P.No.7211 of 2015 and Thiru Duraimurugan, former Minister for Public Works Department, has also filed a W.P.No.7493 of 2015, before Hon'ble High Court, praying to stay all further proceedings of the Commission of Inquiry. The Counter Affidavit has been filed by the Commission of Inquiry on 21.07.2015. Similarly, Thiru M.K.Stalin, former Deputy Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, has filed W.P.No.7211 of 2015 and Thiru Duraimurugan, former Minister for Public Works Department, has also filed a W.P.No.7493 of 2015, before Hon'ble High Court, praying to stay all further proceedings of the Commission of Inquiry. The Hon'ble High Court, in its “Interim Order dated 17.03.2015, has ordered that there will be a similar order on the same line as stated in W.P.No.7049 of 2015”. The counter affidavits were filed for the above Writ Petitions by the Commission of Inquiry on 17.08.2015. The Commission of Inquiry has also filed petitions praying to vacate the stay, on 27.08.2015. Though there was no relief claimed against the 3rd respondent i.e., The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Chief Secretary in the above writ petitions, the Government sent the Counter Affidavit along with the vacate stay petition as corrected by Advocate General of Tamil Nadu and approved by the Chief Secretary to the Government Pleader's Office on 18.05.2015 to file the same before the Hon'ble Court. In this connection, the learned Advocate General of Tamil Nadu has been addressed vide this Department's letter No.9851/Bldgs/2015-6 dated 09.06.2016 and on 21.02.2018 to take up the matter for early hearing and for speedy disposal of the above Writ Petitions. The Counter Affidavit along with the prayer to vacate the interim order was filed by the Government Pleader's Office on 27.07.2018 vide SR No.77996/2018 dtd.27.07.2018. Thiru V.Krishnamoorthy, Advocate on record for the Commission of inquiry, in his letter dated 21.01.2016, has also prayed the Hon'ble High Court to take up the Writ Petitions for early disposal. The Counsel on record also mentioned before the Hon'ble Thiru Justice M.M.Sundresh and Hon'ble Justice Thiru.M.Sathyanarayanan for listing the Writ Petitions for disposal or to vacate the stay. The above Writ Petitions were not listed. In the meantime, caveat Petitions have also been filed by the Petitioners anticipating the Writ Appeals. As such, the above Writ Petitions are pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, for disposal. In view of the position stated above, the Commission of Inquiry is not in a position to proceed further. 4. How many Bungalows/Offices have been allotted to the presiding Officers? As such, the above Writ Petitions are pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, for disposal. In view of the position stated above, the Commission of Inquiry is not in a position to proceed further. 4. How many Bungalows/Offices have been allotted to the presiding Officers? It is submitted that Hon'ble Justice Thiru R.Regupathi Commission of Inquiry is functioning at NCB No.1, P.S.K.Raja Salai, R.A.Puram, Chennai – 28(One) 5. How many staff has been allotted to the said Commission? It is submitted that the Government, in G.O.Ms.No.545, Public (Buildings Department), dated 28.06.2011, have sanctioned a Secretary to Commission of Inquiry, a Personal Assistant to the Commission of Inquiry, a Court Officer, a Section Officer(strictly confidential), an Assistant Section Officer, a Personal Clerk, an Assistant, a Typist and two Drivers. In view of the stay granted by the Hon'ble High Court, in the W.P.No.7049, 7211 and 7493 of 2015, Tmt.S.Mallikha I.P.S.Superintendent of Police, on OD basis, Thiru.N.G.Kumar, Inspector of Police, two Sub-Inspectors of Police, and two Police Constables were relieved from the Investigating Agency. As such, since 2017, the investigating Agency, has ceased to exist. Subsequently the following supporting Staff deputed/appointed to the O/o. Hon'ble Justice Thiru R.Regupathi Commission of Inquiry, were also relieved from the O/o the Commission of Inquiry on various dates before 31.10.2016: (1) The Personal Assistant to the Commission of Inquiry (2) Personal Clerk, (3) Driver attached to the O/o Commission of Inquiry (4) Assistant. Since then the Commission of Inquiry is functioning with the minimum required strength of five (5) Officials viz Secretary to Commission, a Section Officer, a Court Officer, an Assistant Section Officer and a Typist, to assist the Commission of Inquiry. 6. Has any Commission has filed its report so far? In respect of Justice Thiru R.Regupathi Commission of Inquiry, its report is yet to be submitted since the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in its order dated 12.03.2015 has granted stay on the further proceedings of the Commission of Inquiry. 7. How much money has been spent on each of the Commissions? It is submitted that the details of Funds allotted by the Government to the Hon'ble Justice Thiru.R.Regupathi Commission of Inquiry are furnished below: Financial Year Fund allotted by Government Rs. Amount incurred by the Commission of Inquiry Rs. Fund surrendered to the Government Rs. 7. How much money has been spent on each of the Commissions? It is submitted that the details of Funds allotted by the Government to the Hon'ble Justice Thiru.R.Regupathi Commission of Inquiry are furnished below: Financial Year Fund allotted by Government Rs. Amount incurred by the Commission of Inquiry Rs. Fund surrendered to the Government Rs. 2011-12 28,49,000 24,36,283 4,12,717 2012-13 64,35,000 57,88,000 6,47,000 2013-14 70,98,000 60,54,000 10,44,000 2014-15 63,53,000 65,15,500 (-)1,62,000 2015-16 69,57,000 59,77,000 9,80,000 2016-17 78,04,000 69,38,000 8,66,000 2017-18 77,06,000 74,00,300 3,05,700 Total 4,52,02,000 4,11,09,083 40,93,417 8. With regard to the Writ Petition filed in connection with Justice Reghupathi Commission, why the Government has not taken any steps to vacate the stay? (a) It is submitted that appropriate counter affidavits filed for all the three original affidavits for the W.P.No.25445 of 2014, W.P.No.26621 of 2014 and W.P.No.26622 of 2014 by the Commission of inquiry and the Government on 27.10.2014 and 19.12.2014 respectively. (b) For subsequent writ petitions i.e., Writ Petition No.7049 of 2015, W.P.No.7211/2015 & W.P.No.7493/2015, counter affidavit filed by the Commission of Inquiry on 21.07.2015, 17.08.2015 and on 17.08.2015. As the Hon'ble Court granted stay against the proceedings of the commission in the above writ petitions, the Commission of Inquiry filed Vacate Stay petition on 27.08.2015. (c) Though there was no relief claimed against the 3rd respondent i.e., The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Chief Secretary in the above writ petitions, the Government sent the Counter Affidavit along with the vacate stay petition as corrected by Advocate General of Tamil Naud and approved by the Chief Secretary to the Government Pleader's Office on 18.05.2015 to file the same before the Hon'ble Court. (d) In this connection, the learned Advocate General of Tamil Nadu has been addressed vide this Department's Letter No.9851/Bldgs/2015-6 dated 09.06.2016 and on 21.02.2018 to take up the matter for early hearing and for speedy disposal of the above Writ Petitions. (e) The Counter Affidavit along with the prayer to vacate the Interim order was filed by the Government Pleader's office on 27.07.2018 vide SR No.77996/2018 dtd 27.07.2018. 9. In respect of any of the Commissions, was any criminal proceeding under the provisions of IPC or Cr.P.C or Prevention of Corruption Act initiated? It is submitted that no such actions were initiated under the provisions of Indian Penal Code or Criminal Procedure Code or Prevention of Corruption Act. 10. 9. In respect of any of the Commissions, was any criminal proceeding under the provisions of IPC or Cr.P.C or Prevention of Corruption Act initiated? It is submitted that no such actions were initiated under the provisions of Indian Penal Code or Criminal Procedure Code or Prevention of Corruption Act. 10. Once interim stay was granted by the court, why the Commission was not suspended temporarily and the staff redeployed so that there is no need to spend money unnecessary? The Hon'ble Court granted stay on the Writ Petition 7049/2015 on 12.03.2015 and other two writ petitions on 17.03.2015. The Commission of Inquiry filed Vacate Stay petition on 27.08.2015. Appropriate counter affidavits were filed for all the writ petitions by the Commission of Inquiry in time. The Government filed common counter affidavit for all the three original writ petitions on 19.12.2014 vide USR No.16658/2014. The Counter Affidavit on the subsequent Writ Petitions i.e., Writ Petition No.7049 of 2015, W.P.No.7211/2015 & W.P.No.7493/2015 and the vacate stay petition as corrected by Advocate General of Tamil Nadu and approved by the Chief Secretary has been sent to the Government Pleader's Office on 18.05.2015 to file the same before the Hon'ble Court. The Counter Affidavit along with the prayer to vacate the interim order was filed by the Government Pleader's Office on 27.07.2018 vide SR No.77996/2018 dtd.27.07.2018. The case came for hearing only on 18.07.2018 and on 26.07.2018, after it was last heard on 17.03.2015. In this regard, it is submitted that the Commission of Inquiry and the Government have taken all efforts in filing appropriate petitions and the Government has also addressed the Government Pleader's office repeatedly to take up the matter for early hearing and to vacate the stay so as to enable the commission to proceed further with the task assigned to it and also for speedy disposal of the above Writ Petitions. If the commission is suspended, the very purpose of the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry will be defeated as it won't be in a position to complete the enquiry. It is submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, in its order dated 12.3.2015, has stayed only the further Proceedings of the Commission of Inquiry, till the Writ Petitions are finally heard an disposed of”. It is submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, in its order dated 12.3.2015, has stayed only the further Proceedings of the Commission of Inquiry, till the Writ Petitions are finally heard an disposed of”. As the subject matter is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, it is not feasible to take any decision to suspend the Commission of Inquiry and to redeploy the Staff members of the Commission of Inquiry, unless specific order from the Hon'ble High Court in this regard. Since then, the Commission of Inquiry is functioning with bear minimum strength of Officials with a Secretary to Commission, a Section Officer, a Court Officer, an Assistant Section Officer and a Typist, to assist the Commission of Inquiry. 11. Why was there no vacate stay petition filed by the Government?(they are spending tax payers money on this). (a) Appropriate Counter affidavits filed for all the three original affidavits W.P.Nos.25445 of 2014, W.P.No.26621 of 2014 and W.P.No.26622 of 2014 by the COI and the Government on 27.10.2014 and 19.12.2014 respectively. (b) For subsequent writ petitions i.e., Writ Petition No.7049 of 2015, W.P.No.7211/2015 & 7493/2015, counter affidavit filed by the COI on 21.07.2015, 17.08.2015 and on 17.08.2015. As the Hon'ble Court granted stay against the proceedings of the commission in the above writ petitions, the Commission of Inquiry filed Vacate stay petition on 27.08.2015. (c) Though there was no relief claimed against the 3rd respondent i.e., The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Chief Secretary in the above writ petitions, the Government sent the Counter Affidavit along with the vacate stay petition as corrected by Advocate General of Tamil Nadu and approved by the Chief Secretary to the Government Pleader's Office on 18.05.2015 to file the same before the Hon'ble Court. (d) In this connection, the learned Advocate General of Tamil Nadu has been addressed vide this Department's Letter No.9851/Bldgs/2015-6 dated 09.06.2016 and on 21.02.2018 to take up the matter for early hearing and for speedy disposal of the above Writ Petitions. (e) The Counter Affidavit along with the prayer to vacate the interim order was filed by the Government Pleader's office on 27.07.2018 vide SR No.77996/2018 dtd.27.07.2018. 12. If not vacate stay petition, why was no suspension order passed, so as to suspend the Commission of Inquiry until further orders are passed in the cases pending in the Hon'ble High Court? (e) The Counter Affidavit along with the prayer to vacate the interim order was filed by the Government Pleader's office on 27.07.2018 vide SR No.77996/2018 dtd.27.07.2018. 12. If not vacate stay petition, why was no suspension order passed, so as to suspend the Commission of Inquiry until further orders are passed in the cases pending in the Hon'ble High Court? This is further indulgence in corrupt activities. 13. Who is responsible for not initiating action? The Hon'ble Court granted stay on the Writ Petition 7049/2015 on 12.03.2015 and other two writ petitions on 17.03.2015. The Commission of Inquiry filed Vacate Stay petition on 27.08.2015. Appropriate counter affidavits were filed for all the writ petitions by the Commission of Inquiry in time. The Government filed common counter affidavit for all the three original writ petitions on 19.12.2014 vide USR no.16658/2014. The Counter Affidavit on the subsequent Writ Petitions i.e., Writ Petition No.7049 of 2015, W.P.No.7211/2015 & W.P.No.7493/2015 and the vacate stay petition as corrected by Advocate General of Tamil Nadu and approved by the Chief Secretary has been sent to the Government Pleader's Office on 18.05.2015 to file the same before the Hon'ble Court. The Counter Affidavit along with the prayer to vacate the interim order was filed by the Government Pleader's office on 27.07.2018 vide SR No.77996/2018 dtd. 27.07.2018. The case came for hearing only on 18.07.2018 and on 26.07.2018, after it was last heard on 17.03.2015. In this regard, it is submitted that the Commission of Inquiry and the Government have taken all efforts in filing appropriate petitions and the Government has also addressed the Government Pleader's office repeatedly to take up the matter for early hearing and to vacate the stay so as to enable the commission to proceed further with the task assigned to it and also for speedy disposal of the above Writ Petitions. If the commission is suspended, the very purpose of the appointment of the Commission of inquiry will be defeated as it won't be in a position to complete the enquiry. 14. What are the steps taken by the Government towards processing the current Commission of Inquiry? As requested by the Commission of Inquiry, the Commission's tenure period has been extended for three months w.e.f.22.07.2018 vide G.O.(Ms).No.543, Public(Buildings) Department dated 20.07.2018. Answers to the Queries raised by the Hon'ble High Court relating to other Commissions of Inquiry: Justice Thiru. 14. What are the steps taken by the Government towards processing the current Commission of Inquiry? As requested by the Commission of Inquiry, the Commission's tenure period has been extended for three months w.e.f.22.07.2018 vide G.O.(Ms).No.543, Public(Buildings) Department dated 20.07.2018. Answers to the Queries raised by the Hon'ble High Court relating to other Commissions of Inquiry: Justice Thiru. S.R.Singharavelu Commissions of Inquiry (Constituted to inquire into the causes and circumstances that led to the death of Thiru.E.Ilavarasan at Dharmapuri on 04.07.2013) 1. How many Commissions are existing as on date? 5(Five) 2. How long the Commissions are working? From 08.07.2013 3. What is the progress of the Commissions for the purpose for which they were appointed? The Commission has completed its inquiry and the report is under compilation. 4. How many bunglows/offices have been allotted to the Presiding Officers? Office-1(SSA Building, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 6) 5. How many staff has been allotted to the said Commissions? 8(Secretary-1, SC SO – 1, Assistant – 1, Driver-2 and OA – 3) 6. Has any Commission filed its report so far? The Commission has proposed to submit its report by the last week of August 2018. 7. How much money has been spent on each of the Commission? Rs.2,06,50,828/-(upto 31.07.2018) Justice Thiru.S.Rajeswaran Commission of Inquiry (Constituted to inquire into the causes and circumstances leading to the Law and Order disturbances which took place in the agitation for holding of Jallikattu at Chennai, Madurai, Coimbatore and other parts of the State on 23.01.2017) 1. How many Commissions are existing as on date? 5(Five) 2. How long the Commissions are working? From 31.01.2017. 3. What is the progress of the Commissions for the purpose for which they were appointed? It is learnt that 1951 affidavits were received from the general public and officials of Police, Fire and Rescue Services Departments. Of the 1951 affidavits, summons were sent to 996 witnesses and 459 witnesses have appeared and they have been examined till 27.07.2018. Summons have to be issued to around 955 witnesses. Besides receiving of 1951 affidavits, 49 persons were called by the Commission under Section 4 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and 40 of them have appeared and they have been inquired so far. In respect of Salem, Coimbatore and nearby surroundings, the Commission of Inquiry had completed the inquiry. Summons have to be issued to around 955 witnesses. Besides receiving of 1951 affidavits, 49 persons were called by the Commission under Section 4 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and 40 of them have appeared and they have been inquired so far. In respect of Salem, Coimbatore and nearby surroundings, the Commission of Inquiry had completed the inquiry. Persons who had filed affidavits and also the persons called by the Commission under Section 4 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 were inquired therein. Further, besides sittings at Chennai, the Commission of Inquiry is continuing the Court sittings at Madurai regularly, viz., twice a month. 4. How many bunglaows/offices have been allotted to the Presiding Officers? Office – 1(Podhigai Bungalow, Greenways Road, Chennai – 28) 5. How many staff has been allotted to the said Commissions? 18((Permanent staff-4, Standing Counsel-1, Re-employment-1 and Temporary staff-12) 6. Has any Commission filed its report so far? Inquiry is still in progress. 7. How much money has been spent on each of the Commission? Rs.1,47,09,265/-(upto 31.07.2018) Justice Thiru. A.Arumughaswamy Commission of Inquiry (Constituted to inquire into the demise of former Chief Minister, Selvi J.Jayalalitha on 05.12.2016) 1. How many Commissions are existing as on date? 5(Five) 2. How long the Commissions are working? From 25.09.2017 3. What is the progress of the Commissions for the purpose for which they were appointed? It is learnt about 30 sworn affidavits, 240 petitions from individuals and 302 complaints from Police Stations have been received so far. 76 Commission witnesses and 7 petition witnesses have been examined so far by the Commission from 22.11.2017 onwards. Further, so far, 41 Commission witnesses have been allowed to be cross-examined by the Counsel for respondents and 2 Commission witnesses have been re-examined by the Commission. 4. How many bungalows/offices have been allotted to the Presiding Officers? Office-1(Kalas Mahal Heritage Building, Chepauk, Chennai – 5.) Residence-1(EE-5, PWD Quarters, Todhunter Nagar, Saidapet, Chennai – 15) (Not yet occupied by the Hon'ble Judge) 5. How many staff has been allotted to the said Commissions? 11(Secretary-1, SC SO-1, Court Officer-1, PA-1, PC-1, Assistant -1, Typist-1, Driver-1, OA-2 and Sweeper/Peon-2) 6. Has any Commission filed its report so far? Inquiry is still in progress. 7. How much money has been spent on each of the Commission? How many staff has been allotted to the said Commissions? 11(Secretary-1, SC SO-1, Court Officer-1, PA-1, PC-1, Assistant -1, Typist-1, Driver-1, OA-2 and Sweeper/Peon-2) 6. Has any Commission filed its report so far? Inquiry is still in progress. 7. How much money has been spent on each of the Commission? Rs.32,75,371/-(upto 31.07.2018) Justice Tmt.Aruna Jagadeesan Commission of Inquiry (Constituted to inquire into the causes and circumstances leading to the opening of fire resulting in death and injuries to persons on 22.05.2018 and subsequent events at Thoothukudi and nearby areas, arising out of Law and Order disturbances in the agitation relating to permanent closure of Sterlite factory at Thoothukudi) 1. How many Commissions are existing as on date? 5(Five) 2. How long the Commissions are working? From 23.05.2018 3. What is the progress of the Commissions for the purpose for which they were appointed? It is learnt that the Commission of Inquiry has completed its initial sittings at Thoothukudi and inquired various persons relating to the incident. Further, the Commission has called for affidavits from persons having knowledge of the incident. The inquiry process is under way. 4. How many bungalows/offices have been allotted to the Presiding Officers? Office-1(NCB-28, Greenways Road, Chennai – 28) 5.How many staff has been allotted to the said Commissions? 15(Secretary-1, SC SO-1, Court Officer-1, PA-1, ASO-1, PC-1, Assistant – 1, Typist – 1, Driver-2 and OA-5) 6. Has any Commission filed its report so far? Inquiry is still in progress. 7. How much money has been spent on each of the Commission? Rs.27,75,000/-allotted initially (upto 31.07.2018) The above details are submitted for the kind perusal of this Honourable Court. 15(Secretary-1, SC SO-1, Court Officer-1, PA-1, ASO-1, PC-1, Assistant – 1, Typist – 1, Driver-2 and OA-5) 6. Has any Commission filed its report so far? Inquiry is still in progress. 7. How much money has been spent on each of the Commission? Rs.27,75,000/-allotted initially (upto 31.07.2018) The above details are submitted for the kind perusal of this Honourable Court. Details of Commissions of Inquiry: Justice Thiru S.R.Singharavelu Commission of Inquiry (Constituted to inquire into the causes and circumstances that led to the death of Thiru E.Illavarasan at Dharmapuri on 04.07.2013) Justice Thiru S.Rajeswaran Commission of Inquiry (Constituted to inquire into the causes and circumstances leading to the Law and Order disturbances which took place in the agitation for holding of Jallikattu at Chennai, Madurai, Coimbatore and other parts of the State on 23.01.2017 Justice Thiru A.Arumughaswamy Commission of Inquiry (Constituted to inquire into the demise of former Chief Minister, Selvi J.Jayalalithaa on 05.12.2016 Justice Tmt.Aruna Jagadeesean Commission of Inquiry (Constituted to inquire into the causes and circumstances leading to the opening of fire resulting in death and injuries to persons on 22.05.2018 and subsequent events and Thoothukudi and nearby areas, arising out of Law and Order disturbances in the agitation relating to permanent closure of Sterlite factory at Thoothukudi) 1. How many Commissions are existing as on date? 5 2.How long the Commissions are working? From 08.07.2013 From 31.01.2017 From 25.09.2017 From 23.05.2018 3. What is the progress of the Commissions for the purpose for which they were appointed? The Commission has completed its inquiry and the report is under compilation. It is learnt that 1951 affidavits were received from the general public and officials of Police, Fire and Rescue Services Departments. Of the 1951 affidavits, summons were sent to 996 witnesses and 459 witnesses have appeared and they have been examined till 27.07.2018. Summons have to be issued to around 955 witnesses. Besides receiving of 1951 affidavits, 49 persons were called by the Commission under Section 4 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and 40 of them have appeared and they have been inquired so far. In respect of Salem, Coimbatore and nearby surroundings, the Commission of Inquiry had completed the inquiry. Persons who had filed affidavits and also the persons called by the Commission under Section 4 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 were inquired therein. In respect of Salem, Coimbatore and nearby surroundings, the Commission of Inquiry had completed the inquiry. Persons who had filed affidavits and also the persons called by the Commission under Section 4 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 were inquired therein. Further, besides sittings at Chennai, the Commission of Inquiry is continuing the Court sittings at Madurai regularly, viz., twice a month. It is learnt that about 30 sworn affidavits, 240 petitions from individuals and 302 complaints from Police Stations have been received so far. 76 Commission witnesses and 7 petition witnesses have been examined so far by the Commission from 22.11.2017 onwards. Further, so far, 41 Commission witnesses have been allowed to be cross-examined by the Counsel for respondents and 2 Commission witnesses have been re-examined by the Commission. It is learnt that the Commission of Inquiry has completed its initial sittings at Thoothukudi and inquired various persons relating to the incident. Further, the Commission has called for affidavits from persons having knowledge of the incident. The inquiry process is under way. 4. How many bungalows / offices have been allotted to the Presiding Officers? Office – 1 (SSA Building, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai – 6) Office – 1 (Podhigai Bungalow, Greenways Road, Chennai – 28) Office – 1 (Kalas Mahal Heritage Building, Chepauk, Chennai – 5) Residence – 1 (EE-5, PWD Quarters, Todhunter Nagar, Saidapet, Chennai-15.) (Not yet occupied by the Hon'ble Judge) Office – 1 (NCB-28, Greenways Road, Chennai – 28) 5. How many staff has been allotted to the said Commissions? 8 (Secretary-1 SC SO – 1 Assistant-1 Driver-2 OA-3) 18 (Permanent staff-4 Standing Counsel-1 Re-employment-1 Temporary staff-12) 12 (Secretary-1 SC SO-1 Court Officer-1 PA-1 PC-1 Assistant-1 Typist-1 Driver-1 OA-2 Sweeper/Peon-2 15 (Secretary-1 SC SO-1 ASO -1 Court Officer-1 PA-1 PC-1 Assistant-1 Typist-1 Driver-2 OA-5 6. Has any Commission filed its report so far? The Commission has proposed to submit its report by the last week of August, 2018 Inquiry is still in progress Inquiry is still in progress Inquiry is still in progress. 7. How many money has been spent on each of the Commission? Rs.2,06,50,828/-(upto 31.07.2018) Rs.1,47,09,265/- (upto 31.07.2018) Rs.32,75,371/- (upto 31.07.2018) Rs.27,75,000/- allotted initially (upto 31.07.2018) Conclusions: 114. The Commission has proposed to submit its report by the last week of August, 2018 Inquiry is still in progress Inquiry is still in progress Inquiry is still in progress. 7. How many money has been spent on each of the Commission? Rs.2,06,50,828/-(upto 31.07.2018) Rs.1,47,09,265/- (upto 31.07.2018) Rs.32,75,371/- (upto 31.07.2018) Rs.27,75,000/- allotted initially (upto 31.07.2018) Conclusions: 114. On a careful reading of the above particulars produced by the State through the learned Advocate General, this Court is of an undoubted opinion that long extension of Commission of Inquiry was granted only at the request of the Commission of Inquiry and the Government has not independently applied its mind for grant of extension and for grant of financial sanctions. The factual details in respect of the functioning of the Commission of Inquiry has not been considered while passing orders granting extensions. The least expected from the State is to ensure that, when the entire functioning of the Commission of Inquiry is stayed by this Court, then the State is obligated to issue the consequential order, suspending the functioning of the Commission of Inquiry until further orders of the High Court. That exercise also has not been done by the State. Contrarily, financial sanctions are granted every year running more than Rs.2 crores. Thus, there is no justification either on the part of the State or on the part of the Commission of Inquiry to draw salary, utilise the Governmental facilities and infrastructures without performing any public duties and responsibilities. The very purpose of the Commission of Inquiry Act is defeated and the purpose of the State in appointing the Commission of Inquiry to ascertain the facts are also failed. 115. Admittedly, the Commission of Inquiry on its appointment, directed the State Investigating Agency to investigate the matter and submit a report and the report also has been submitted. Materials were collected, statements were recorded from many number of Government Officials, documents were also received. If those materials, investigating reports and the documents reveal any prima facie case of allegation of excess expenditures, causing loss to the State Exchequer, the question of approval, clearance, inordinate delay, deficiency in standards and corrupt activities are found, then the State is duty bound to register an appropriate criminal case under the penal provisions of law, namely, Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act etc., and proceed in accordance with law. Contrarily, the State cannot extend the duration of Commission of Inquiry for years together without any purpose and knowing the fact that the Commission of Inquiry has no teeth to bite or the report submitted is unenforceable in law. The public interest requires that in the event of availability of prima facie materials for prosecution, then the State at the first instance, must institute criminal proceedings against all the public servants, Government Officials and the persons concerned, against whom such prima facie materials and evidences are available in respect of certain offences. 116. It is needless to mention by this Court that whenever such Commissions of Inquiries are appointed in respect of certain allegations of corruption, then the people are totally frustrated and lost confidence on such an exercise. The retired Judges appointed as Member of the Commissions of Inquiries are widely criticised by stating that they are biased. This Court is not on the point of the public opinion raised against a Judge, however, when such criticisms are consistent and spontaneous for number of years, then the State and the authorities concerned are duty bound to think about the lacunas and other weaknesses in respect of appointment of Commission of Inquiry. In spite of all these factors, the Commissions of Inquiries are allowed to continue for years together in respect of a single subject and even the reports are not submitted for number of years. If the Commission of Inquiry is functioning indefinitely for an unspecified period, then the State has to dissolve those Commissions of Inquiries and resolve the issues in the manner known to law. The report of the Commission of Inquiry is of no legal validity. It is not necessary that the State will implement the report of the Commission of Inquiry. Such being the validity and the status of the inquiry report of the Commission of Inquiry, the said fact finding method can be adopted by the State through any other method without spending huge amount from the tax payers' money. 117. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjiv Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Others [ (2005) 5 SCC 517 ], categorically held that the Commission of Inquiry do not have enough teeth and for their functioning they have to depend on the State's assistance. Commissions of Inquiry remain pending for unreasonable lengths of time. 117. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjiv Kumar vs. State of Haryana and Others [ (2005) 5 SCC 517 ], categorically held that the Commission of Inquiry do not have enough teeth and for their functioning they have to depend on the State's assistance. Commissions of Inquiry remain pending for unreasonable lengths of time. The reports submitted do not bind the State and in spite of transparency and public hearings which the Commissions often held, at times with fanfare, the reports hardly serve any purpose. By the time the reports are submitted, the public memory has already fainted and people are not any more bothered about the results. In respect of this Inquiry Commission relating to the death of one Mr.E.Illavarasan, S/o. P.Elango, what purpose the Commission is going to achieve and even in case of receiving a report, what would be the action of the State in this regard, which is all doubtful. Thus, all such Commissions are to be dissolved without any further delay and after making assessments in the light of the observations made in the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 118. The details of these Commissions of Inquiries as narrated in the earlier paragraphs would unambiguously characterises that some of the Commissions of Inquiries have not submitted its report so far, nor any such reports submitted are taken as a guidance or suggestions for the improvement of public administration by the State. The very objective and purpose of the Commission of Inquiry Act has not been fulfilled and defeated, at the cost of the tax payers' money. Thus, this Court is of a considered opinion that urgent review of all those Commissions of Inquiries, which all are pending for years together is imminent and decisions are to be taken by the State for further extension of these Commissions of Inquiries by applying its mind and considering various other consequential factors and, if necessary, take a decision to dissolve all these Commissions of Inquiries for the purpose of saving unnecessary further expenditures to the State Exchequer. 119. It is relevant to note that some Commissions of Inquiries are functioning in Government Residential Bungalows and such Residential Bungalows are constructed by the Government for the purpose of providing Official Residences for the sitting Hon'ble Ministers and Hon'ble Judges. 119. It is relevant to note that some Commissions of Inquiries are functioning in Government Residential Bungalows and such Residential Bungalows are constructed by the Government for the purpose of providing Official Residences for the sitting Hon'ble Ministers and Hon'ble Judges. If such Residential Bungalows are allotted for the purpose of running Commissions of Inquiries, one can understand that the same will cause inconveniences to the Hon'ble Ministers and the Hon'ble Judges. The Officers of the Commission of Inquiries, witnesses the State machinery and other persons will attend an inquiry proceedings day-in and day-out and the same would cause nuisance and inconveniences to the family members and the personnel staff of the Hon'ble Ministers and the Hon'ble Judges, who are residing in the nearby Residential Bungalows. All such official functions are to be conducted only in Government Office Buildings and certainly not in Residential Bungalows. Thus, all these Commissions of Inquiries now functioning in the Government Residential Bungalows, which all are to be allotted for the residential purposes to be vacated and such Bungalows are to be provided for the residential use of the Hon'ble Ministers and the Hon'ble Judges. 120. In respect of the Hon'ble Thiru Justice R.Regupathi Commission of Inquiry is concerned, the significance of the public importance have already lost, on account of the lapse of about seven years from the date of its appointment. Thus, further, continuance of this Commission of Inquiry would not serve any purpose at all. 121. For instance if the report is submitted after a lapse of ten years, then further actions or prosecutions, if any, on those public servants under the Penal Law would be delayed and in some occasions may not be possible at all. That would be the idea of the persons who have involved in such illegal activities. However, the State as well as the Courts can never encourage or pave way for such an escape route for the offenders from the clutches of law. 122. This apart, the entire episode will fade from the memory of the people. Thus, the very objective of the Commission of Inquiry Act, is defeated. This Court is of an opinion that Hon'ble Thiru Justice R.Regupathi Commission of Inquiry would not serve any purpose hereafter and the State should consider dissolving the Commission without any further delay. 122. This apart, the entire episode will fade from the memory of the people. Thus, the very objective of the Commission of Inquiry Act, is defeated. This Court is of an opinion that Hon'ble Thiru Justice R.Regupathi Commission of Inquiry would not serve any purpose hereafter and the State should consider dissolving the Commission without any further delay. If the State is of an opinion that prima facie materials, records and evidences are available for initiation of criminal prosecution, then all the public servants, Government Officials and the persons concerned, are to be booked under the Penal provisions of Law. 123. This Court is of an opinion that such Commission of Inquiry was appointed and prolonged for an unspecified period in order to neutralise the sensitiveness of the issues involved and to divert the attention of the people. Some Commissions of Inquiries are appointed on political reasons, however, its continuance, frequent and long extension of the Commissions of Inquiries are granted by the State either to dilute the issues or to favour some persons or a group of persons. But the ultimate objectives set out for appointing the Commissions of Inquiries are not only diluted but completely frustrated. 124. This Court would consider when the allegations of sub-standards in Governmental buildings, lapses, excess expenditures, illegalities or corrupt activities are certainly offences under the Penal provisions of Law. When prima facie materials are available with the State, then the State is bound to prosecute all the public servants, who all are responsible and liable for such illegalities and offences. In such circumstances, the State must be slow in appointing Commissions of Inquiries. Though the powers are vested with the State, the State cannot exercise the same in order to neutralise the offences or to extend favouritism to a group of people or persons. There is no impediment for simultaneous proceedings of Commissions of Inquiries as well as criminal prosecutions. However, it is preferable that the State, at the first instance, should invoke the powers of a criminal prosecution. 125. Now it is for the State to scrutinise the report of the Investigating Agency, statements given by the Government Officials, files, records and materials already collected and in the event of any prima facie case, the third respondent is bound to prosecute all the public servants, who all are responsible and liable for such illegalities or offences. 126. 125. Now it is for the State to scrutinise the report of the Investigating Agency, statements given by the Government Officials, files, records and materials already collected and in the event of any prima facie case, the third respondent is bound to prosecute all the public servants, who all are responsible and liable for such illegalities or offences. 126. In view of the importance involved in the issues raised in these petitions, this Court has considered the issues at length and following orders are passed in the vacate stay petitions and in the stay petitions, as under:- (i) The third respondent/State is directed to issue orders within one week from today, suspending the Hon'ble Thiru Justice R.Regupathi Commission of Inquiry and stop all further allotment of funds including the perquisites and Government facilities, till the final disposal of the writ petitions. (ii) The third respondent/State is directed to review the functionings of all the existing Commission of Inquiries and take a decision in respect of its further continuance, dissolving the same or fixing the time limit for the submission of report based on the legal principles settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the observations made in this order, within a period of four weeks. (iii) The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to hand over all the records, reports of the Investigating Agencies, statements and the evidences collected, to the third respondent/State, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of those documents, the third respondent/State is directed to scrutinise the said reports of the Investigating Agencies, statements and evidences of Government Officials and files and if prima facie case is found, then institute criminal prosecutions against all the public servants, Government Officials and the persons concerned, under the Penal provisions of Law. (iv) The third respondent/State is directed to issue orders, vacating the respective Government Residential Bungalows allotted to all the Commissions of Inquiry, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If at all, accommodation is required, the same shall be provided in the Government Office buildings suitably. 127. With these directions, the earlier interim order granted by this Court on 12.3.2015 stands modified. Accordingly, the vacate stay petitions and the stay petitions are disposed of.