AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 24

25. Section 3-Fixing of time.-

In a case decided by the Andhra Pradesh High Court1 it was held that if the notification under section 3 appointing a Commission does not specify the time within which the Commission has to complete its inquiry and if the mistake is not rectified by a subsequent notification2 then, until the defect is cured, the Commission is debarred from functioning under the notification notwithstanding the fact that the notification is not invalid.

The Commission, it was observed, would be in a state of suspended animation. This decision shows that it is desirable that the appropriate Government appointing a Commission should specify the time within which the Commission is to conclude its work. The Act, however, does not require any amendment in this behalf. The only clarification we are recommending3 is that the period within which a report is to be submitted may be extended from time to time by notification.

1. Narayanadoss v. T. Neeladari Rao, AIR 1959 AP 148 (153).

2. Compare Ram Krishna Dalmia's case 1959 SCR 279 (312).

3. See App I, section 3(4).



Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys