- (1.) The petitioner, said to be an Advocate practicing law since the year 1996, has filed this petition ostensibly as a Public Interest Litigation ('P.I.L.') with the suggestion that he was concerned with arbitrary transferring of criminal investigation from one agency to another and from one place to another at the behest of interested persons; and that this manoeuvring was taking place in the absence of guidelines in respect of such transfer of cases/investigation. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus commanding the respondents to frame regulations governing investigations by the Crime Branch, Criminal Investigation Department (for brevity 'CBCID') and other investigating agencies who are directly under the control of the Principal Secretary (Home), State of U.P.
(2.) This petition, as filed on 19.11.2015, came up at the initial stage before a Co-ordinate Bench on 23.11.2015. During the course of hearing, it was pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents that the petitioner had previously filed a petition at Allahabad, being P.I.L. No.11467 of 2015, that was dismissed on 19.05.2015; and it was submitted that these material facts were not disclosed in the present petition.
(3.) Having regard to the submissions so made, the Court put the petitioner to notice as to why the proceedings be not initiated for concealing the material facts, particularly when the prayer has essentially been made for the same cause in the name of public interest. It was also indicated that in the event it was found that the petitioner has indulged into such a practice, the Court would proceed to take appropriate action against him. The petitioner was directed to file his affidavit and also to remain present before the Court. The order dated 23.11.2015 reads as under:- "Heard Sri K.K. Srivastava, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Amir Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition has been filed praying for a mandamus directing the respondents to frame the regulations governing investigation by the Crime Branch C.I.D and such agencies who are placed under the direct control of respondent no.1. The petitioner admittedly is a practicing advocate at Kanpur. It has been pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner had filed a writ petition at Allahabad being P.I.L No. 11467 that has been dismissed on 19.05.2015. This fact does not appear to have been disclosed in the present writ petition. We put the petitioner to notice as to why proceedings be not initiated for having concealed this material fact before this Court when the prayer made is in effect for the same cause in the name of public interest. In the event it is found that the petitioner has indulged into such a practice, the Court shall proceed to take appropriate action against him. The petitioner shall, therefore, be also present when the matter is taken up on 02.12.2015 and file his affidavit giving explanation to that effect. List accordingly.";