ORDER

1. THE PRINCIPAL RELIEF SOUGHT FOR IN THIS PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION, AND PURPORTING TO BE A PETITION IN PUBLIC INTEREST, IS TO TRANSFER INVESTIGATION IN CRIME CASE NO. 914 OF 2004 FROM THE TAMIL NADU STATE POLICE TO THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. ON THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE PETITION AND AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER, WE ARE NOT SATISFIED THAT THE PETITIONER HAS SATISFIED THE TEST OF BEING A PERSON AGGRIEVED OR HAVING LOCUS STANDI FOR FILING THE PETITION.

2. MOREOVER, WE FIND THAT THE PETITION IS LACKING IN MATERIAL PARTICULARS. ALL THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE PETITION ARE BASED, BY AND LARGE, ON NEWS REPORTS AND NOT ON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. THE PETITION DOES NOT STATE THAT THE PETITIONER HAS TAKEN ANY CARE TO VERIFY HIMSELF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE AVERMENTS MADE. THE COPY OF FIR OR ANY OTHER PAPERS ENABLING FORMATION OF AN OPINION AS TO THE AVERMENTS FORMING SUBJECT-MATTER OF INVESTIGATION HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. NONE OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS, WHO WOULD BE VITALLY INTERESTED IN THE HEARING AND WHO WOULD REALLY BE THE PERSONS AFFECTED, HAVE BEEN JOINED AS PARTY TO THE PETITION. ON THE CONTRARY, VIDE LIST OF DATES (P. A OF THE PETITION), THE PETITIONER ALLEGES THAT HE IS NOT CLAIMING ANY RELIEF FOR THE ACCUSED PERSON.

3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN R.S. SODHI V. STATE OF U.P.1, GUDALURE M.J. CHERIAN V. UNION OF INDIA2, MUNIR ALAM V. UNION OF INDIA3, VINEET NARAIN V. UNION OF INDIA4 AND STATE OF BIHAR V. P.P. SHARMA5. INSOFAR AS MUNIR ALAM3 IS CONCERNED, THE PETITION WAS FILED BY THE FATHER OF A PERSON WHO HAD DIED IN AN INCIDENT OF FIRING. IN ALL THE OTHER DECISIONS RELIED ON BY

A THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER, THE COURT WAS INCLINED TO DIRECT INVESTIGATION IN A PARTICULAR MANNER OR BY A PARTICULAR INVESTIGATING AGENCY BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT PARTICULAR CASE. THE CASES DO NOT LAY DOWN ANY SUCH LAW AS WOULD HELP THE PETITIONER IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

4. IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT HAS BEEN STATED HEREINABOVE, A CASE FOR INVOKING EXTRAORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT AT THE INSTANCE OF THE PETITIONER IS B NOT MADE OUT. THE PETITION IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE.

COURT MASTERS