N.PANDEY, J.

1. This is petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing some of portions of the report of the two Members of the Bhagalpur Riot Inquiry Commission, which reflect stigma and are prejudicial to the conduct and reputation of petitioner No. 1 as also to restrain respondents 1 and 2 from taking any action on the basis of offending portions of the report or any insinuation therein.

2. In order to appreciate respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it would be useful to give, in brief, the circumstances, leading to appointment of the Commission and also to quote the terms of reference : In the year 1989, due to certain communal clashes and riots, several persons of both the communities lost their lives and property. Therefore, the State Government having regard to enormity of the communal disturbances and magnitude of the riots, decided to constitute a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to enquire into the cause for communal disturbances and to fix responsibility against the persons who are found responsible. Accordingly, in exercise of the power conferred by Sec. 3 of the Act, the State Government while appointing Hon ble Mr. Justice Ram Nandan Prasad, a retired Judge of the High Court, as sole member of the Commission, referred the following terms of reference :-

a) to enquire into the facts and circumstances leading to communal disturbances in the district of Bhagalpur and adjacent areas on 24th October, 1989 and thereafter;b) to enquire into whether these disturbances were pre-planned and, if so, the elements responsible for the same;c) to enquire whether measures taken by the District Administration to prevent and deal with the said disturbances were timely and adequate, and to fix responsibility for lapses if any, in this regard.d) to recommend measures for preventing recurrence of such disturbances;e) to consider such other matter relating to these communal disturbances and make such recommendations as the Commission may think it proper and necessary.

3 In fact, at initial stage, Hon ble Mr. Justice Ram Nandan Prasad was appointed as sole member of the Commission but subsequently, by a notification dated 20-9-1993, Hon ble Mr. Justice Ram Chandra Prasad Sinha and Hon ble Mr. Justice S. Shamsul Hasan (both retired Judges of this Court) were also appointed.

4. All the parties to the Commission filed written statements and examined witnesses. Having regard to the allegations against certain Government officials, the Commission also considered necessary to enquire into their conduct etc., therefore, notices were issued against such officials in terms of Sec. 8-B of the Act. But at the instance of some of the Government officials, validity of such notices were questioned before this Court in C. W. J. C. No. 5203 of 1993 and ultimately, after hearing the parties, operations of the impugned notices were stayed. But while the said writ application was pending, two separate enquiry reports were submitted by the Commission, i.e. one signed, by the two members, namely, Hon ble Ram Chandra Prasad Sinha and Hon ble S. Shamsul Hasan on 11-2-1995 and the other by Hon ble Ram Nandan Prasad, Chairman of the Commission on 28-2-1995.

5. Before turning to rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to clarify that we are not concerned with the correctness or otherwise of either of the two versions. In fact whatever facts we shall notice hereafter are with a view to find out whether in facts and circumstances of the case, provisions of Section 8-B of the Act are attracted.

6. I am conscious that a Commission of Inquiry appointed under the provisions of the Act is simply a fact finding body, therefore, its report is not binding on the Government. As such, any attempt to find out the correctness or otherwise of such a report may be beyond the scope