( 1 ) THE petitioner by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed to issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to appoint a special commissioner to expeditiously investigate the offences disclosed in the petition.

( 2 ) AT the outset, it is required to be noted that the petitioner has no personal knowledge in the matter. Some one has come out with some report in the newspaper and the petitioner is seeking the reliefs on the basis of such a report. The matter was placed for admission initially on 12. 12. 2001 when a notice was issued to respondents No. 1 to 3 only and no notice was issued to the rest of the respondents. On 4. 2. 2004, the petitioner requested for deleting the name of respondent No. 4 and accordingly the name of respondent No. 4 was deleted from the array of parties.

( 3 ) IT is also required to be noted that before the present petition was filed by the petitioner, a charge sheet was filed before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, chennai wherein it was pointed out that a case was registered on 7. 8. 1993 against shri M. L. Sitaraman, Proprietor of M/s. Southern Art, 10d, First East Main Road, shenoy Nagar, Madras and other unknown person under Section 120b of the Indian penal Code and Section 25 (1) read with Section 3 of Antiques and Art Treasures Act, 1972 (for short AAT Act) for illegal export of antiquities. Charge sheet was filed in the case which resulted in acquittal of the accused.

( 4 ) ANOTHER case was registered on 4. 11. 1994 on the basis of information received from Dr. C. Margbandhu, Director, A. S. I. , for similar offences, but for different articles, against Shri C. P. Singh, formerly a resident of Kaka Nagar, New Delhi and shri Gulshan Kumar Bhardwaj of 6/125, Bajrang Street, Jind (Haryana) alleging therein that a terracotta panel with two monkeys in fighting pose hadbeen smuggled out of India. As no evidence could be found, the case was closed and the closure report was accepted by the Court of competent jurisdiction on 27. 2. 1997.

( 5 ) THE petitioner has contended that he had communicated information vide letters dated 3. 3. 2001 and 31. 3. 2001 and the same ought to have been examined. The initial order made by the Court also makes it clear that the question was limited one and respondents 1 to 3 were asked to submit status of the information alleged to have been supplied by the petitioner. It is contended by the petitioner that a report was published in the daily Hindu dated 3. 2. 1998 and the author of it is one Vaiju naravane. The said report was under caption The Cinderella of Orbassano.

( 6 ) ON behalf of Union of India, Shri Hari Manjhi working as Director, Antiquity in the archaeological Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi filed an affidavit, inter alia, pointing out that in July, 2001, a Committee was constituted by the DG. ASI to examine the charges levelled by the present petitioner regarding illegal export of indian antiquities from Chennai and Bangalore and the said Committee had wide ranging discussions with the Superintending Archaeologist, ASI and other government departments including Customs. The Customs Department pointed out that as far as they are concerned, the consignment of statues, sculptures and artifacts are subject to 100% examination and the moment there is a doubt, the consignment is referred to ASI for its expert opinion. It is further pointed out by the deponent that the Committee did not come across any evidence whatsoever which would suggest any smuggling of sculptures or artefacts to the two named firms in the petition, namely, M/s. Etnica in Rivolta and M/s. Ganpati in Orbassano. It is in view of this the deponent stated that it does not appear that the allegations made by the petitioner on this score have any real foundation.

( 7 ) ABOUT the allegations made by the petitioner with regard to FIR registered on 8. 7. 1993 in respect of smuggling of antiquities to Italy, an