- (1.) MR . R.R. Mishra, learned counsel for the State submitted that the name of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been shown in the order dated 17.05.2012 as Rajiv Ranjan, whereas Mr. Rajiv Ranjan is the Additional Advocate General and he is not appearing in this case for the petitioner and Mr. Rajiv Kumar is appearing for the petitioner. Hence, the name of the learned counsel for the petitioner is corrected in the order dated 17.05.2012 in Court today in the cause title of the petition.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the State further submitted that in case of any complicity of the respondent nos. 14 to 20 comes in the light to the State Vigilance Bureau then State Vigilance Bureau will act accordingly. However, in the page -2 of the order dated 17.05.2012 in place of State Vigilance Bureau, C.B.I. has been mentioned, which be read accordingly. It is made clear that the State's contention was that in case any complicity of the respondent nos. 14 to 20 comes in the light then State Vigilance Bureau will act accordingly as the matter of respondent nos. 14 to 20 is not before the Central Bureau of Investigation. A large number of interlocutory applications have been shown in cause list as pending. In this Public Interest Litigation several orders have been passed and the matters have been referred to the CBI also and, therefore, out of several, some of I.As. may be pending. Therefore, we deem it proper to direct the Office to make report about pending and decided Interlocutory Applications separately.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the CBI may give status of the matter pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above Special Leave to Appeals (CC) No. 6742 of 2010 and correspondently SLP (Civil) No. 14319 -14321/2010 and learned counsel for the State may also provide a copy of the Special Leave Petitions so as to know what is the matter pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.;