JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Mukul Rohtagi learned senior counsel appearing for Petitioner in support of this writ petition. This writ petition is filed with lots of agony and it is submitted that in spite of an order passed by this Court on 22nd November, 2013 in earlier SLP(C) No. 4264-4266 of 2013 recording the willingness of the State of Maharashtra that the complaints lodged by the Petitioner will be looked into in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. and Ors., reported in 2013 (13) SCALE 559, the appropriate order is not passed. The Petitioner contends that he has lodged serious complaints with respect to various offences against Respondent No. 8 to 13 with the authorities of the police in Mumbai and since no appropriate action was being taken he went to the High Court earlier. It was submitted by the State before the High Court that the matter had to be proceeded under the Bombay Public Trust Act. The Respondent No. 8 and his family member were allowed to intervene in the matter. That order passed by the High Court was set aside by this Court by its order dated 22.11.2013. The order passed by this Court recorded that the four complaints ma