JUDGMENT

S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J.—The above special leave petition is preferred by the petitioners of whom petitioners 1 to 16 are members of the Legislative Assembly of Haryana and petitioners 17 to 19 are members of the Parliament. They all jointly filed a Civil Petition No. 14500 of 1991 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh seeking various reliefs, the main of which being to direct an investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation against Ch.Bhajan Lal on the basis of FIR No. 372 of 1987 of Sadar Police Station, registered on the complaint of Dharam Pal, making serious allegations of corruption, misuse of authority etc. and for setting aside the order of the Magistrate discharging the accused, Ch. Bhajan Lal.

2. The High Court dismissed the petition by a brief order without going into the locus standi of the petitioners. The relevant portion of the impugned order is as follows:

"3. The reasons disclosed in the writ petition and canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners broadly are, that respondent 2 being in the helm of affairs of State, there is a reasonable apprehension in the minds of the people that a fair and impartial investigation in the aforesaid FIR is not expected, more so when respondent 2 in the earlier case has already refuted the allegations levelled against him in the affidavit filed by him before the Honble Supreme Court. It has been vehemently stressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the State Police Agency will not be in a position to hold free and fair investigation and on that account, the investigation should be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and having gone through the writ petition, we do not find any merit in the contentions, as in substance the prayer of the petitioner is to ask this Court to pass an order which may have the effect of running directly counter to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court as contained in the concluding paragraph of the judgment referred to above. Dismissed."

3. Hence this SLP.

4. When the very maintainability of this petition on the ground of locus standi of the petitioners was raised, Mr R.K. Garg, learned senior counsel forcibly contended that the perfunctory and mutilated investigation, the hasty submission of the cancellation report by the police under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the unreasoned order of the Magistrate discharging Ch. Bhajan Lal without application of his judicial mind - writ large on the face of the final order dated July 22, 1991 - are all under a cloud of suspicion and dust and, therefore, this Court in the interest of justice has to step into the matter and direct a fresh investigation by the CBI. He further contended that Ch. Bhajan Lal by offering the post of Chairman of Khadi Board of Haryana State had inspired Dharam Pal to file an affidavit withdrawing the allegations made in the complaint and that Ch. Bhajan Lal had thus planned very meticulously and ingeniously to drive the final nail in the coffin of investigation and in that endeavour has become successful.

5. These petitioners were not at all parties to the earlier proceedings at any stage. Hence, notwithstanding the above submission, we unreservedly hold that these petitioners have no locus standi to approach this Court for the reliefs sought for in this petition. In this connection, reference may be made to the decisions of this Court in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary {(1992)4 SCC 305 and Simaranjit Singh Mann v. Union of India (19921 4 SCC 653. The copies of the affidavit of Dharam Pal and the order of the Magistrate, discharging the accused have been produced before us. We also sent for the file, containing the said affidavit and discharge orders and perused the same.

6. Though it is true that Dharam Pal who appeared before this Court supporting the case of the State of Haryana in Civil Appeal No. 5412