- (1.) M. C. Agarwal, J. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: " (i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for record of the case and quash the impugned order of respondent No. 1, dated22-4-1998 (Annexureno. 5 ). (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respon dents, not to enforce the impugned order of respondent No. 1 dated 22-4-1998 (Annexure-5) against the petitioner on any ground and in any manner whatsoever. (iii) to issue an interim mandamus, staying operation of the impugned order of respondent No. 1 dated 22-4-1998 (Annexure-5) pending decision of the writ petition. "
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. We have heard Sri B. B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned A. G. A. for respondent Nos. 1,3,6 ,ad 7 and Sri J. S. Sengar, learned counsel for Shiv Raj Singh, respondent No. 5. An F. I. R. was lodged at police sta tion Kotwali, Mainpuri on 6- 9-1996 alleg ing that the petitioner along with several others had way laid the first informant and his companions Gajendra Singh, Hem Singh Yadav, Mahesh Singh Yadav, Ashok Panhar, Naresh Dixit, Devendra Singh, Santosh Gupta, and informant's brother Santosh who were travelling in a jeep and started indiscriminate firing with their fire arms i. e. rifles and guns declaring that they will roast them today. The first in formant Surendra Singh, Santosh Gupta, Santosh Singh and Devendra Singh managed to escape while other persons were done to death by the aforesaid group of persons. The present petitioner is one of them. The case was investigated by the local police. Subsequently an order dated 17-10-1996, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition, was made by the Government that the case be investigated by the crime branch of C. I. D. The im pugned order dated 22-4-1998 was issued stating that the Government has on a con sideration of the matter decided that the investigation be withdrawn from the C. B. C. LD. and transferred to the local civil police. It is this subsequent order that is challenged in the present writ petition. It is alleged that the impugned order is erroneous, arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, perverse and without jurisdiction and violates Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice and fair play in as much as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before making the said order. It is also claimed that the impugned order has been passed at the instance of Shiv Raj Singh respondent No. 5 who is a former M. L. A from Bhogaon Constituency and is the real brother of the first informant Surendra Singh respondent No. 3.
(3.) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 6, namely, the Station Officer, police station Bhogaon and the S. S. P. , Mainpuri (the counter-affidavit wrongly mentions serial number of respondent No. 6 as respon dent No. 5) it has been stated that the case was investigated by the local police and a charge-sheet has been submitted on 27-9-1996 and the concerned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case on 23-5-1998. It is stated in paragraph of the said counter-affidavit mat the order dated 17-10-1996 transferring the investigation to the C. B. C. I. D. was passed on initiation of the present petitioner who was a strong supporter of an important leader who was then the Defence Minister at the centre and the petitioner himself was the sitting President of Samajwadi Party at Bewar District Mainpuri. It is stated that the C. B. C. I. D. did nothing in the matter and the local police has already submitted a charge-sheet against the petitioner and other persons. According to the respon dents the State Government is vested with the power to transfer the investigation to any agency which is considered fit in the "facts and circumstances to meet the ends of justice and that the investigation seems to have been re-transferred to the local police because it had already concluded the investigation and the C. B. C. I. D. did nothing. In the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is admitted that a charge-sheet has already been filed before the concerned Magistrate on 23-5-1998 on which the cognizance has been taken. The petitioner has filed a copy of an order dated 16-6-1998 passed by the learned Magistrate in which the aforesaid fact is stated.;