IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9159 of 1995 A.U.SARMA, son of Late A Gopala Krishna Rao, formerly Chief Secretary, Bihar, resently residing at 7-1- 644/57 Sundernagar, Hyderabad (Pin – 500 038), Andhra Pradesh ………..Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Patna 2. Bhagalpur Riot Inquiry Commission, through its Secretary Sri Madan Prasad, Top Floor, Anjali Apartment, Behind Alankar Place, Boring Road, Patna – 800 001 3. Hon’ble Mr. Justice R N Prasad, Chairman of the Bhagalpur Riot Inquiry Commission, A -11, Anjali Apartment, Behind Alankar Place, Boring Road, Patna - 800 001 4. Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retired) S Shamsul Hassan, Member of the Bhagalpur Riot Inquiry Commission, resident of Plot no.207, Patliputra Colony, Patna -800 013 5. Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retired) R C P Sinha, Member of the Bhagalpur Riot Inquiry Commission, Road no.13, Rajendra Nagar, Patna – 800 016……Respondents ----------- 05- 6/9/2010 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Heard Mr. A K Verma, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel III. 2. The petitioner was the Chief Secretary of the State when acute communal riots broke out in Bhagalpur. The State Government constituted an Enquiry Commission comprising of Mr. R N Prasad, Mr. Syed Shamsul Hassan, and Mr. R C P Sinha, former Judges of this Court. The Commission submitted its report wherein adverse comments on the functioning of the petitioner in handling the riots at 2 Bhagalpur were made while he was posted as the Chief Secretary of the State. The adverse portions of the report are quoted in the writ petition. On a perusal of the same, we entirely agree with the comments and the observations made by the Enquiry Commission. The petitioner had not only shown complete lack of administrative perception in judging the enormity of the situation at Bhagalpur, and his inept handling of the same, and also did not seem to be very truthful before the Commission. For example, he stated that it was a local law and order problem which was primarily to be handled on day-to-day by the local administration. It was, therefore, submitted on behalf of the petitioner before the Commission that he had no role to play in the matter. The contention has been rejected and, in our view, rightly because the local administration was constantly receiving instructions from the State Government in Patna. Though the petitioner had received information that communal riots had started at Bhagalpur, he left for Delhi. Therefore, we are of the view that the observations made by the Commission in its report is well-merited and borne out from the 3 evidence on record. 3. We do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Birendra Prasad Verma ) mrl