ORDER

1.The writ petitioner wrote a letter in the month of December 2005 to the Chief Justice of India complaining about the killing of his brother, Sohrabuddin, in a fake encounter and disappearance of his sister-in-law Kausarbi at the hands of the Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS) Police (Gujarat) and Rajasthan Special Task Force (STF). Taking notice of this letter of the writ petitioner, this Court forwarded it to the Director General of Police, Gujarat to take further action. The CID (Crime) conducted an enquiry and the statements of a number of witnesses, including the petitioner, were recorded.

2.The writ petitioner came to know that pursuant to preliminary inquiry of the CID, an interim report about the encounter of the brother of the writ petitioner and disappearance of his sister-in-law had been sent to the Court. The said inquiry was conducted by a team headed by Ms. Geetha Johri, IGP, CID, Crime. Accordingly, it has been submitted that a concerted effort to scuttle the inquiry and destroy the material evidence had started- resulting in another fake encounter with one Tulsiram who was a key link in the alleged murder of Sohrabuddin and was used by the team of ATS and Rajasthan STF to trace his whereabouts. The writ petitioner is apprehensive of the safety of his brother, Nayabuddin who is one of the witnesses in the present case and is named in the FIR in which Tulsiram was arrested.

3.Under the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petitioner, by filing the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for a direction to the Gujarat police to produce Kausarbi and for a fair and impartial investigation in both the episodes by the CBI so that the matter goes beyond the influence of the local police.

4.On the said application under Article 32, while issuing a notice to the Union of India, this Court on 22ndJanuary 2007 made the following order :

“Issue notice to the respondent No 11- Union of India returnable in two weeks. Ms. Sushma Suri, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India accepts notice. We request Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned Addl. Saolicitor General, who is present in this Court, to take instructions in the matter, in the meantime.”

5.Subsequently, by another order dated 19thMarch 2007, this Court issued a notice to the State of Gujarat which was made returnable on 23rd March 2007. It is evident from the said order that the State of Gujarat was asked to produce the relevant records on 23rd March 2007. The Court passed the following order when the matter came up before it on 23rdMarch 2007.

“Learned senior counsel for the respondent State submits that as regards some of the police officers who were involved in the alleged acts, some of the details have been collected by the State and after the full details are available further action will be taken in the matter. Learned counsel also submits that the State will be writing to the Government of Madhya Pradesh for giving protection to the petitioners herein, who are residing at Village Jharnia Sheikh, Dist Ujjain, M.P. Three weeks time is granted to the State to file a report in a sealed cover. The report submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India in the sealed cover may be taken on record.”

6.In the meantime, the report submitted by the Additional Solicitor General for India was perused and placed on record. The matter came up again on 20th April 2007 for consideration before this Court. A week’s time was granted to enable the State of Gujarat to make submissions on the report submitted by Additional Solicitor General of India, a copy of which was ordered to be supplied to the learned counsel for the State of Gujarat and other parties.

7.However, Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi submitted an interim report from the side of the State of Gujarat on 27th April 2007 in which the State made an interim report on the investigation conducted by them in pursuance of the orders of this Court dated 22nd January, 2007, 19th March 2007, 20th March, 2007 and 2