Territorial jurisdiction and statutory commission limits under Article 226, with inquiry confined to the original reference.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 was upheld where the first respondent carried on official functions within the State, his office was at Trivandrum, and the impugned action emanated from within the Court's limits, so effective relief could be granted against him. The Travancore Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1124 was treated as an existing law continued by Article 372(1) and the Travancore-Cochin Administration and Application of Laws Ordinance, 1124, and was capable of sustaining the Commission's proceedings. However, the Commission could not enlarge its inquiry beyond the years and matters covered by the original reference, because the statute authorised only the limited reference actually made.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain the petition against the first respondent; (ii) whether the Travancore Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1124 continued in force and could sustain the investigation; (iii) whether the Commission could enlarge the enquiry beyond the years covered by the original reference.

Issue (i): whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain the petition against the first respondent.

Analysis: The first respondent carried on his official activities within the State, his office was situated at Trivandrum, and the impugned communications and threatened action emanated from within the territorial limits of the Court. The writ sought was essentially to restrain action within the State, and effective relief could be granted against the first respondent without deciding the position of the second respondent.

Conclusion: The objection to territorial jurisdiction was overruled, and the petition was maintainable against the first respondent.

Issue (ii): whether the Travancore Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1124 continued in force and could sustain the investigation.

Analysis: The enactment was treated as an existing law continued by Article 372(1) of the Constitution and by the Travancore-Cochin Administration and Application of Laws Ordinance, 1124. Section 1(3) was read as coming into force immediately on enactment, while the remaining provisions were later brought into operation by notification. The Court rejected the contention that the Act had lapsed or lacked vitality for want of a valid continuance.

Conclusion: The Act was held to be in force and capable of supporting the Commission's proceedings.

Issue (iii): whether the Commission could enlarge the enquiry beyond the years covered by the original reference.

Analysis: Section 5 permitted references only up to the last day of Makarom, 1125, and the only reference made within time was confined to the two evasion cases relating to 1942 and 1943. The Court held that the statute did not authorise the Commission to extend the enquiry beyond the matters actually referred, and any attempt to do so lacked legislative warrant.

Conclusion: The attempted enlargement of the enquiry was prohibited and could not proceed beyond the original reference.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only to the extent of restraining the Commission from exceeding the original reference, while the challenge to jurisdiction failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory commission cannot enlarge its inquiry beyond the scope of a valid and time-bound reference unless the statute expressly authorises such enlargement; where effective relief can be granted against a respondent within territorial limits, Article 226 jurisdiction is attracted.

---