Point of Law: Conduct and bona-fides of the Petitioner are not to be construed as an indictment of the State of Maharashtra in general but they are in context as a party in this litigation and as an adjudication of the issue raised in this petition.

JUDGMENT :

NITIN JAMDAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for disposal.

2. The Petitioner-the state of Maharashtra, through its Home Department, has filed this Petition praying for the constitution of a Special Investigation Team to be monitored and thereafter directing the Respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation to hand over the investigation of the concerned FIR to the Special Investigation Team so constituted.

3. The Petitioner the State of Maharashtra is represented through the Joint Secretary, Home Department. Respondent No. 1 is the Central Bureau of Investigation. Respondent No. 2-Mr. Subodh Kumar Jaiswal is the Director of Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 3-Mr. Mukesh Kumar is the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 4 is the Director-General of Police of the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 5 is the Chief Secretary of the Government of Maharashtra. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 support the Petitioner in its cause.

4. Narration of facts in the Petition is as follows. The detailed factual backdrop relevant for this adjudication is narrated subsequently in the judgment.

5. On 20 March 2021, the erstwhile Police Commissioner of Mumbai-Mr. Param Bir Singh, by letter dated 20 March 2021, levelled allegations of corruption against Mr. Anil Deshmukh, Home Minister, Maharashtra State. A complaint was filed by one Dr. Jaishri Patil. A. Public Interest Litigation No. 6/2021 was filed by Mr. Param Bir Singh pursuant to the allegations made against Mr. Anil Deshmukh. The Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 5 April 2021 passed in PIL No. 6/2021 and other connected matters, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to initiate a preliminary inquiry in the complaint made by Dr. Patil in respect of the allegations made against Mr. Anil Deshmukh, the then Home Minister. CBI carried out a preliminary inquiry on 21 April 2021 and registered an FIR Crime No. RC/2232021A0003/CBI/AC-5/New Delhi (the FIR) against Mr. Anil Deshmukh and other unknown persons. The FIR also included the allegation of illegal transfer and posting of police officers. On 3 May 2021, the State of Maharashtra filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 1903/2021 for quashing the unnumbered paragraph-5 of the FIR dated 21 April 2021 relating to illegal transfers and postings of police officers. The writ petition was rejected by the Division Bench on 22 July 2021. The order of rejection was challenged by the State of Maharashtra in the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 5563/2021on 30 July 2021, and the Supreme Court dismissed it by order dated 18 August 2021. On 18 September 2021, Respondent No. 3-Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI issued a notice under section 160 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to Respondent No. 4-Director General of Police and Respondent No. 5-Chief Secretary requesting them to appear before him in connection with the FIR at New Delhi office on 22 and 23 September 2021. Respondent No. 5 wrote to Respondent No. 3 to provide him with the context and the questionnaire which need to be addressed, which was replied to by Respondent No. 3 on 7 October 2021. On 18 September 2021, Respondent No. 3 asked Respondent No. 5 and 6 to join the investigation on 13 October 2021 at Mumbai. One more communication was issued. At this stage, the Petitioner filed the present Petition on 12 October 2021. This is the factual backdrop narrated in the petition.

6. The Petition is filed on the ground that Respondent No. 2-Mr. Jaiswal, who is the Director of CBI, was, at the relevant time, heading the Maharashtra Police Force and was directly involved in deciding and implementing transfers and postings of Police officers and, therefore, no fair and impartial investigation can take place when the Respondent No. 2 is at the helm of affairs of CBI. The Petitioner also made a grievance in the Peti