- (1.)This petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation by the Petitioner claiming himself to be an advocate practicing in Madras. Respondent No. 6, a high ranking Indian Police Service officer who is already facing criminal prosecution on certain charges and his case has already been dealt with by this Court in Umesh Kumar v. State of A.P., 2013 10 SCC 591, has allegedly indulged himself in corruption and acquired certain properties. Therefore, the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed for an independent and impartial investigation by the investigating agency. The Petitioner in the list of dates has simply stated that he had been successfully pursuing the cause of preventing and restricting the roots of corruption from spreading in our country by utilizing the strong and impartial judicial system. On the basis of the aforesaid statements the bonafides of the Petitioner could not be ascertained. More so, we fail to understand that instead of approaching any other forum for the relief, he had approached this Court directly.
(2.)This Court in Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2013 2 SCC 398, dealt with a case wherein after examining the facts of that case directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate as who was the real person who had planted the writ Petitioner seeking investigation against the Respondent therein and dismissed the writ petition with costs of Rs. 5 lakhs. Bearing the aforesaid apprehension in mind and as we are very much doubtful about the bonafides of the present Petitioner, we do not entertain this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.