(1).THIS mandamus-appeal is at the instance of the state of West Bengal and is directed against order dated 31st July, 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship passed an interlocutory order in a pending writ-application by directing the Central bureau of Investigation ("CBI") to take charge of the investigation relating to the alleged kidnapping of the son of the writ petitioner. His Lordship directed the CID, West Bengal, to handover all the records of the investigation so long made by the CID, West Bengal, to the Director, CBI. His Lordship further directed that the matter should appear after eight weeks and the CBI should submit a report to the Registrar General of this Court on the returnable date.

(2).THE writ-petitioner/respondent filed a writ-application being W.P. No. 12426 (W) of 2006 thereby praying for direction upon the State-respondent to take effective step to trace out the son of the writ-petitioner who was missing from 20th September, 2004 and to handover the custody of the said missing son of the petitioner. The writ-petitioner prayed for further direction upon the State-respondents to discharge their statutory duties effectively and to conduct free, fair and effective investigation so that the son of the petitioner could be recovered and the offenders could be brought to book without any delay whatsoever.

(3).THE writ-application was entertained in the month of May, 2006 by the learned Single Judge and thereafter, His Lordship on May 19, 2006 directed the respondents to file affidavit disclosing the steps taken by them. While passing such direction, it was specifically recorded that His Lordship was utterly dissatisfied by the state of affairs appearing from the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the State with regard to the progress of investigation made by them. His Lordship further made it clear that unless convincing progress was made in the investigation and the same was disclosed in the affidavit, His Lordship would like to assign the investigation to the CBI.

(4).SUBSEQUENTLY, various dates were fixed but as it appears from the orders passed on those dates, there was no further progress of the investigation at the instance of the CID, West Bengal.

(5).ULTIMATELY, by the order impugned herein His Lordship decided to entrust the CBI with the investigation.

(6).MR. Adhikary, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State-appellant strenuously contended before us that the CID, West Bengal, by observing the provisions of the law conducted the investigation with prompt and aptitude and there was no negligence or inaction on their part and, therefore, there was no occasion for entrusting the CBI with the investigation. Mr. Adhikary by strongly relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and Anr. v. Ranchi Zila Samata Party and Anr. reported in (1996)3 SCC 682 : AIR 1996 SC 1515 contended that no ground has been made out for referring the matter to the CBI. He also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Sampat Lal and Ors. that is reported in AIR 1985 SC 195 for convincing us that it is a fit case where we should not approve the direction of the learned Single Judge impugned in this appeal.

(7).MR. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ-petitioner/respondent, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge and has contended that although the son of the writ-petitioner had been missing for the last three years, till date, no effective step has been taken for tracing out the whereabouts of the said boy and consequently, the learned Single Judge rightly passed the order impugned.

(8).WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the entire materials on record including the Case Diary produced by Mr. Adhikary before us. We find that there are sufficient