Sonia Gokani, J.

1. By way of present petition preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuing directions against the respondent No. 5-Central Bureau of Investigation, to conduct the investigation qua the illegal obtaining of Call Detail Records (for short 'CDRs') by the Gujarat Police in respect of the mobile phone of the petitioner in connection with the investigation of the crime alleged to have been committed in the State of Maharashtra.

2. The facts of the case if put in a nutshell are as under :

2.1 The petitioner is a cardiologist by profession having his clinic at Mumbai. Mrs. Meenakshi Narsimha Moorthy, mother of the respondent No. 3, was referred to the petitioner by the patient's family doctor in the month of June, 2010. She was admitted to the petitioner's nursing home in the month of May, 2011 and she suffered a cardiac arrest resulting into her natural death on May 06, 2011.

2.2 The respondent No. 3 made a complaint against her own brother, her brother's wife and her own daughter as well as against the present petitioner. By letters dated May 26, 2011 and May 31, 2011, sent by her advocate, she called upon the Borivali Police Station, to conduct the investigation in the matter and register her complaint. It is the say of the petitioner that on June 13, 2011, the respondent No. 3 addressed a letter to the Senior Inspector making allegations against her family members and the petitioner and in the said letter, the respondent No. 3 stated that she is the wife of the then Additional Director General of Police (Prisons). In addition to various allegations made by her, she has stated that an inquiry was conducted by the police at Ahmedabad and a report detailing the cellphone analysis and data has been sent by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crimes), Ahmedabad, to the Police Officer at Mumbai. The letter mentions that the Gujarat Police had called for CDRs of the petitioner and submitted on June 15, 2011, stating that the CDRs of the certain number were required to be collected and investigated. In subsequent correspondence, she called for call details, duration of calls, location of persons against whom she has made allegations and has also given her own analysis of the CDRs. The same had been shared by the Gujarat Police. The petitioner has stated that the allegations made by the respondent No. 3 in the complaint concerns the crime alleged to have been committed in the State of Maharashtra. The investigation has been carried out by Maharashtra Police. In the first information report lodged with Borivali Police Station at Mumbai, Maharashtra and the Courts of Maharashtra have jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue. The issue that has been raised by the petitioner is as to under what authority and for what purpose the Gujarat Police conducted inquiry into the matter by getting themselves involved in the investigation carried out by Maharashtra Police. The petitioner also submitted that the nature of inquiry conducted by the Gujarat Police and the purpose under which it was conducted and under whose orders it was done, are the issues, which require investigation.

2.3 Secondly, the petitioner has raised the issue with regard to the procedure followed by the Gujarat Police for obtaining CDRs, which includes personal data, such as phone number of calling and called parties, duration of call, the time and date of the call, location of the parties and other such personal information. According to the petitioner, telecommunication companies maintain records to comply with the Government regulations and for internal reporting purpose. The CDRs contain personal data of individuals and any illegal use of the same would be a serious intrusion of an individual's right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. No person should be deprived of his right to privacy, except by the established procedure of law. It is further submitted that if an offi