D.N.PATEL,J. - (1.) THE present Public Interest Litigation has been preferred for the following prayers: "I. For a direction upon the respondent Nos 7 to 9 to investigate and register an FIR against the respondent Nos. 10 to 15 as the resolvent Nos. 10 to 15 have earned huge amount and amassed disproportionate assets to the known sources of income whenever the respondent No. 10 was working as a P .A. of the then Coal Minister ad Chief Minister of Jharkhand namely Shibu Soren by misusing the official position. II. For a direction upon the respondent Nos. 7 to 9 to make investigation in length as no one can escape who earned huge amount in the serving period as a P .A. to their known sources of income and submit the status report of investigation before this Hon'ble Court so that the efficient investigation can be done against those persons who are holding a such post in the State of Jharkhand."
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner, Shri J. K. Dey, submitted that respondent Nos. 10 to 15 have amassed disproportionate assets. These assets have been earned by respondent Nos. 10 to 15 mainly because of the reason that respondent No. 10 was working as P. A. to the then Coal Minister and the Chief Minister of the State of Jharkhand by misusing his official position and this wealth has been accumulated illegally at the hands of respondent Nos. 10 to 15. Counsel appearing for the petitioner is unable to point out the credentials of the petitioner and not a single word has been argued; who is the petitioner, how he is getting his livelihood and what are his activities.
(3.) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioner has relied upon Annexure1 to the memo of this writ petition. When we asked a question that what is Annexure1, he is unable to point out who is the author of Annexure1. No information has been supplied by the petitioner about the author of Annexure1. When we raised a question as to how Annexure1 has come in the custody of the petitioner, he is unable to point out any source of the custody of Annexure1. Practically, counsel for the petitioner has not argued out any of the points, except the allegation that respondent Nos.10 to 15 have a lot of property illegally collected by misusing the position of respondent No. 10 at the relevant time and which is the year, in which the property is accumulated i.e. also not clear to the lawyer. In the petition also, there is no averment about the source of getting Annexure1 and the similar is the position with Annexure2. In fact, no head and tail could be matched by the counsel for the petitioner. Thus practically, nothing is argued out by the counsel for the petitioner except, wasting of time of this Court for several minutes.;