- (1.) PENDING main writ petition [W.P. (PIL) No. 370 of 2003], IA. No. 399 of 2005 was filed requesting this Court to stay the investigation of the Fodder Scam cases. This Court, on 9.12.2005, rejected the said prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner, keeping in view that no order was required to be passed because this Court was earlier monitoring the investigation of the case, in view of the order of the Supreme Court. In that order, it was also observed that this Court is now supervising the disposal of such cases under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) FROM the reading of the aforesaid order, it is -manifestly clear that the request for stay of the criminal proceeding made through IA. No. 399 of 2005 was rejected. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner chose to file S.L.P. in the Supreme Court being S.L.P. (Cr.) No. 6152/2006. The Supreme Court after hearing counsel for the parties, ultimately permitted the petitioner, as requested by him, to withdraw the Special Leave Petition, with liberty to move this Court and with the said observation, the S.L.P. was dismissed. It appears that without filing a fresh application, seeking alternative prayer, counsel for the petitioner now wants to make his submission on the same very IA. petition, stating the order passed on 9.12.2005 does not amount to rejection of the prayer. On this submission, he prayed to permit him to argue the matter, However, it further appears that by order dated 3.11.2006, this Court permitted the counsel for the petitioner to advance his argument by filing a fresh Interlocutory Application. That is how the matter has been posted today i.e. 6.11.2006 for hearing the matter. However, no fresh application was filed, bu in view of the fact that the counsel for the petitioner has urged before this Court to consider the observations made by the Patna High Court and the Supreme Court, which have been deliberately flouted by the Central Bureau of Investigation, we have allowed to argue the matter at length. It is strenuously contended by the counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the various observation made in a decision reported in, 1996 (2) PLJR 218 (SC) Union of India and Ors. v. Sushil Kumar Modi and Ors. and also the order dated 5.10.2001 passed in CWJC No. 1617 of 1996 with C.W.J.C. No. 602 of 1996 (R) by Patna High Court, to the effect that even though the Patna High Court as well as the Supreme Court directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to make honest, impartial and fair investigation, C.B.I, has failed to make a fair investigation and they have filed charge -sheet only against some persons and did not make any effort to investigate with reference to the role played by the Accountant General and its officers despite the order of the Court.
(3.) WE have heard the counsel for the respondents on this aspect.;