Parwavi Devi Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

.....advice the public to stay at a safe place--but required to make every place safe--action must be taken by police against the terrorists--petition disposed off with direction. - [g.s. singhvi, chandramauli kr. prasad, jj.] - the judges (inquiry) act, 1968 section 3 -- after the motion was admitted, the chairman of the rajya sabha (hereinafter referred to as, the chairman ) constituted a committee comprising mr. justice v.s. sirpurkar, judge, supreme court of india, mr. justice a.r. dave, the then chief justice of andhra pradesh high court and respondent no.3. in the meanwhile, mr. justice a.r. dave, chief justice of the andhra pradesh high court, was transferred to the bombay high court and was then elevated as judge of this court and in his place mr. justice j.s. khehar, chief justice of the uttarakhand high court was included in the committee. in september, 2010, mr. justice aftab alam, judge, supreme court of india was appointed as presiding officer because mr. justice v.s. sirpurkar recused from the committee. it is a travesty of justice that the judges inquiry committee has been so constituted with the same shri p.p. rao as a sitting member of the said committee. this is opposed to all principles of justice and rule of law. from the letter it was evident that following justice dave's elevation, the committee was re-constituted and justice j.s. khehar, who at that time was chief justice of the uttarakhand high court was brought on the committee in his place. the letter went on to say that the committee consisting of hon'ble mr. justice v.s. sirpurkar, judge, supreme court of india, hon'ble mr. justice j.s. khehar, chief justice of uttarakhand high court and shri p.p. rao, senior advocate, was examining the notice of motion. investigation into misbehaviour or incapacity of judge by committee.- one shall be chosen from among the chief justices and other judges of the supreme court; report of committee.- one shall be chosen from among the chief justice and..........the respondents in their counter have submitted that jehanabad district is infested with the extremists and terrorists and despite facing the terror of the terrorists, they have provided sufficient security etc. learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that if a police out post is directed to be opened in his village (rustampur) then the petitioner and many like him would be saved from the atrocities committed by the extremists/terrorists. 3. this court can only express a pious hope but cannot issue any direction to the state government in its contempt jurisdiction. the state, however, should be advised that it should require its officers not to give such advice or direction to the petitioner because such advice in fact adversely affect the moral and morale of the public at large and the people will start feeling that the police is not in a position to curb the extremists activities or control the persons who are involved in such activities. if the police officer knows that pradumn sharma is chasing the petitioner to kidnap him then an action must be taken by the police against the said pradumn sharma. the police is not required to simply advice the public that they should stay at a safe place, the police is required to make every place safe for the public. 4. the petition is disposed of with the directions/observations aforesaid. 5. let a copy of this order be sent to the director general of police, bihar, the superintendent of police, jehanabad and the chief secretary.