(1) This public interest litigation seeks a direction upon the respondent No.3 to initiate proceedings against respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length we are unable to accept any of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2) The petitioner No.1 claims to be a society registered under the Indian Societies Act, 1961 having its office at Kolkata. The petitioner No. 2 claims that he is a citizen of India and is the Secretary of the Society-petitioner No. 1. The petitioners, thereafter, state that they took up the cause for alleviation of the sufferings of the aggrieved persons, particularly the down-trodden section of the society. They stand up against the social norms particularly those which go against the democratic norms and values. The petitioners also claim to have earlier filed public interest litigation regarding famous Nandigram episode being W.P. No.335 (W) of 2008.

(3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the aforesaid writ petition on 30th April, 2007, this Court directed the respondent authorities to ensure protection to the local residents of Nandigram area including their lives and liberties in accordance with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The State authorities were directed to take adequate measures to ensure the maintenance of law and order in the area. In the present case, after investigation of the matter in accordance with the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 21563 of 2007, the State authorities have failed to initiate any criminal proceedings against respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7. Therefore, necessary directions need to be issued by this Court to ensure that persons with vested interest of protecting the guilty are punished in accordance with law. Learned Counsel also submitted that since the petition was filed immediately on reading newspaper reports, the petitioner has not been able to attach much of the relevant materials with the petition. The petitioner may be permitted to file the same as and when it would be available to the petitioner, with ihe leave of the Court. Learned Counsel also submitted that he is aware of the pendency of the proceedings in the Appeal Court as also in the Criminal Court on the same issues. Learned Counsel, however, submits that separate directions are required in this writ petition to ensure that respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are not able to escape punishment for the crimes committed by them.

(4) Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, appearing for respondent No.7 submits that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioners have failed to establish their locus standi. Even otherwise the writ petition is motivated at the instance of some unknown persons. It is also submitted that the writ petition is in fact a publicity interest litigation taking advantage of the publicity which surrounded the death of a young man named Rizwanur. The petitioners seek to rely on certain newspaper reports in support of the claim that the respondents have been deliberately shown favour by the investigating authority. This apart, according to the learned Counsel the proceedings are still pending in the Court of appropriate jurisdiction.

(5) We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. The writ petition is wholly bereft of any material particulars to establish the credentials of the petitioners for filing the present writ petition. Admittedly, the writ petition is only based on the newspaper reports attached with the writ petition. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioners has candidly admitted before this Court that the writ petition is based only on the newspaper reports. It has been filed without attaching any of the relevant materials in support of the averments made in the writ petition. The writ petitioners have miserably failed to satisfy this Court as to whose cause is being espoused by them The fact that the writ petition lacks