ORDER :

In Writ Petition (Crl.) No.93 of 2011, the petitioner is seeking transfer of four criminal cases, the details of which are set out in prayer clause (A) of the said writ petition, from State CID to the CBI. The transfer is sought on two grounds. The first ground is based on averments made at page (F) of the synopsis and elaboration of those averments in paragraphs 15 to 25 of the said writ petition. The second ground is regarding the alleged victimisation of the petitioner because he is the brother of Kuldip Sharma, IPS Officer, who is stated to have defied certain alleged illegal instructions of the then Chief Minister of Gujarat (R-3).

2. On 12/5/2011, when this petition was listed before this Court, Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner made the following statement, which was recorded by this Court in its order of the same date. Order dated 12/5/2011 needs to be quoted. It reads as under:

"Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner states that he does not wish to retain the averment made at page F of the synopsis in its present form and the elaboration of that statement as contained in paragraphs 15 to 25 of the Writ Petition. In this connection, he states that he will file a supplementary petition making suitable amendments to those averments which tend to cast an unintended and wrong information in their present form. Mr. Colin Gonsalves added that neither he nor the petitioner has any interest to make the faintest allegation of any personal impropriety against the Chief Minister."

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has made suitable amendments as per statement made by his counsel whereas it is the case of the respondents that certain averments which had to be deleted as per order dated 12/5/2011 are still on record. It was urged by Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Addl. Solicitor General, who appears for the State of Gujarat that since the petitioner has not complied with this Court's above order, the petition is liable to be rejected on that count. We are not inclined to go into this disputed question whether the concerned averments have been deleted or not because as stated above on 12/5/2011, a categorical statement was made by learned counsel for the petitioner that neither he nor the petitioner had any interest to make the faintest allegation of any personal impropriety against the Chief Minister. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to raise any contention based on averments made at page (F) of the synopsis and elaboration of that statement in paragraphs 15 to 25 of the said writ petition or at any other place in the said writ petition. If any of those averments are still in the petition, they cannot be taken into consideration. It is not possible for us to allow the petitioner's counsel to reopen those submissions, averments in respect of which were agreed to be deleted. In view of the above statement made on 12/5/2011, learned counsel for the petitioner addressed us on the second ground i.e. the alleged victimisation of the petitioner because his brother, an IPS Officer has defied the alleged illegal instructions of respondent 3 and biased attitude of the State of Gujarat against the petitioner on that count.

4. We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner at great length on the alleged victimisation of the petitioner. He has taken us through all the relevant averments made in the said writ petition and the material relied upon by the petitioner in support of his case. We have also heard learned Addl. Solicitor general for the State of Gujarat. We have perused the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the State of Gujarat and the relevant material relied upon by the State of Gujarat. We have also gone through the judgment of this Court in Sri Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal (II) T.N. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (2005) 8 SCC 771 to which our attention was drawn by learned counsel for the petitioner and judgment of this Court in K