STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus AJAY SINGH AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 274 · Decided: 02-11-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

;\ 
STATE OF MADHYA•PRADESH 
v. 
AJAY SINGH AND ORS. ETC. 
NO\'.EMBER 2, 1992 
B 
[J.S. VERMA AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] 
Commissions of Enquiry Act, 1952 : 
Sections 3, 7 and 8-A-{)ne-man Commission-Replacement of the 
C initial appointee with another person-Whether pennissib/e under the scherne 
of the Act-Whether Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 could be 
in raked to read such power into the Act. 
D 
E 
General Clauses Act, 1897: 
Section 2 I-Pott1er to add to an1end or vary: or rescind any notifica-
tion--JV!ietht;r cuuld be invoked to reconstitute the C.:on11nission of Inquiry by 
rcpiacemelll of substituiio.'z of tlze existin!i members, though not provided in 
the scheme of lhe Act. 
Pursuant to the direction given by the State High Court, the appel-
lant-State by a Notification dated 24.2.1989, constituted a Commission of 
Inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, to investigate into the 
affairs of the Children's Welfare Society, of which Respondent No.l was 
an office bearer and appointed a sitting Judge of the High Court of 
another State as the sole member of the Commission. The inquiry w.ts to 
F 
be completed within a period of six months, but the period was extended 
from time to time. Meanwhilr, the sole member became due to retire as a 
Judge of the High <.:ourt on attaining the age of superannuation and, 
therefore, he wrote a letter dated 193.1991 to the Chief Secretary of the 
appellant-State drawing attention to this fact and requesting that the 
necessary modalities be worked out well in time for his continuance as 
G Commission of Inquiry, in the light of the guidelines issued by the Govern-
ment of India for the benefits and emoluments payable to a Judge on his 
retirement in such a situation. The Judge also mentioned some of the 
facilities he expected, to which he would not be entitled fron1 the State 
Government on his retirement. The Chief Secretary sent a reply dated 
H 9.4.1991 to the Judge promising to give an early reply and requesting him 
274 
' 
STATE OF M.P. v. AJAY SINGH 
275 
to continue with the inquiry so that the same could be completed early. A 
However, without further rererence to the Judge, the State Government 
issued a notification dated 10.7.1991, replacing him by a retired Chier 
Justice of another High Court. This appointment was challenged before 
the High Court, which, by an interim order dated 30.7.1991 stayed the 
operation or the notification. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 
new member tendered his resignation. Consequently, the High Court dis-
missed the writ petition as infructuous on S.9.1991. Thereafter, the Chief 
Secretary to the Government sent a letter dated 12.9.1991 to the original 
appointee expressing the State Government's inability to accept the terms 
and conditions of the Judge, and informing him of the appointment of 
retired Chief Justice or another High Court, who had since resigned. 
Thereafter the State Government issued another notification dated 
9.l.1992 appointing a retired Judge or another High Court as a single 
member of the Commission. This was challenged before the High Court 
B 
c 
on the ground that during the continuance as the single member of the D 
Commission of Inquiry of the original appointee, there was no power in 
the State Government to replace him, and there being no vacancy in the 
office, the power under Section 3(3) or the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 
1952, which was available only to fill any vacency, could not be invoked 
and there was no other source or power •vailable to the State for the 
purpose and, therefore, the appointment first or the retired Chier Justice E 
and then, on his refusal, of another retired Judge, being without any 
authority, was invalid. 
The High Court allowed the·writ petitions and quashed the notifica· 
tion dated 9.l.1992. It held that there was no vacancy in the office of' the 
F 
single member of the Commission to empo\l·er the State fiovernment to 
fill the vacancy under Section 3(3) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. It 
also held there was neither any valid reason or ground nor any power 
available in the State Government to replace the original member by 
another person as was purported to be done by first appointing one 
member 
Judges. 
and then another member, both of whom were also retired 
In the appeals, by special leave, on behalf of the State Government, 
G 
it was contended that aid of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act was 
available to th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.