Swatanter Kumar, C.J.

The Petitioner in this Public Interest Litigation, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed that a detailed enquiry be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a retired High Court Judge of this Court in to the various complaints/representations made by him about the functioning of Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (hereinafter referred to as the “Institute”) and other Research Institutions and further to quash and set aside the actions of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in granting extensions and/or appointment of Respondent No.3 as Chairman of Department of Atomic Energy (hereinafter referred to as “DAE”) even after the age of his superannuation being arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the law. The Petitioner has also prayed that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 be restrained from granting any further extension and/or appointment on the said post to the private Respondent Dr. Anil Kakodkar, Respondent No.3. To the present Petition, the Respondents have raised the following issues for determination.

(a) The present Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable as it relates to a service matter and the present Petition is an abuse of the process of law. The Petitioner, who is dismissed employee of the Institute, is trying to make his grievances in the present Petition under the garb of Public Interest Litigation.

(b) The questions raised in the present Petition have now become academic and none of the affected persons have raised any grievance against the grant of extension to Respondent No.3.

(c) The present Petition is also not maintainable inasmuch as the Institute is a registered public trust and therefore, is covered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the “Act”, and the remedy available to the Petitioner, if any, lies before the Charity Commissioner in terms of Section 41A of the Act.

(d) There are good and sufficient reasons recorded by the Competent Authority for granting extensions to Respondent No.3 and the same have been granted in accordance with the provisions of the Proviso to Fundamental Rule 56(d) which itself was introduced by Notification No.25012/6/2001 dated 27th February, 2002.

2. We may refer to basic facts giving rise to the present Public Interest Litigation. The Petitioner claims to be a social worker who has always been in the forefront by taking up various social and other welfare issues beneficial to the public at large. He also claims that he was the General Secretary of a Social organization called “Sthaniya Lokadhikar Samiti Mahasangh” (SLSM). The Institute has a hierarchy and Respondent No.3 is the Secretary of Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) and Chairman of Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). The Petitioner was employed with the Institute and was even promoted in the Officer Category and he claims to have taken steps for the welfare of the staff of the Institute. According to the Petitioner, the Director of the Institute was involved in various fraudulent activities, has misused his powers, fabricated his date of birth, had entered into different transactions to the prejudice of the Institute and did not invest the provident fund money of over Rs.5 crores of the employees in an appropriate manner. As no action was being taken on his various complaints which, according to him, were only illustrative of irregularities being committed in the affairs of the Institute and Respondent No.3 had tried asking him to desist from raising complaints against the Institute and its Director. However, because of personal bias, Respondent No.3 on the basis of some false, vague, fabricated charges, forged documents against him relating to unauthorized absence, involvement in political activities and submitting of false Leave Travel Concession claims, stage managed an inquiry. According to the Petitioner, he had an unblemished record of service and he had been falsely implicated by Respondents as vengea