This Public Interest Litigation was initially filed by one Ashim Kumar Samanta, who was made a party-Respondent in the present proceeding by order dated 06.02.2013, seeking a direction upon the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the alleged bungling committed in the Jharkhand Combined Entrance Competitive Examination conducted in the year, 2011 for admission in the Medical colleges of the State of Jharkhand.

2. The allegations made by the impleaded Respondent no.15 in the writ petition were found frivolous and it was observed by this Court that the Respondent no.15 has been set up at the behest of the Respondent no.16, Narayan Hansda. The order dated 06.02.2013 reads as under:-

“Learned counsel for the respondent no. 11 has serious allegation with respect to bonafide of the petitioner as well as reason for filing the petition in the name of P.I.L. in violation to the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010.

Respondent's a egations against the petitioner are of very serious nature. Respondent no. 11 also has placed on record several documents along with his counter affidavit.

According to the learned counsel for the respondent no. 11, respondent no. 11 took the admission in the RIMS and he was the bonafide candidate and therefore, he was given admission in the RIMS. In the RIMS, there is one person Narayan Hansda who according to therespondentno.11isthe'Boss'andisknown to every person in the RIMS. The respondent no. 11 submitted that petitioner in connivance with the said Sri Narayan Hansda, has filed this petition for extortion of money which the said Narayan Hansda (Boss) could not get from the respondent no. 11 in spite of severe beating given to him wherein the respondent no. 11 suffered serious injury of fracture in the right ear which in medical term is ca ed 'Tympanic Membranefracture'.Therespondentno.11was given beating calling him an outsider (Bihari) and respondent no.11 was further asked to pay Rs. two lacs within 10 days which the respondentno.11 refused to pay. Father of the respondent no. 11 made a complaint to the S.S.P., Ranchi on 02.11.2011 with a copy to the Director, RIMS, Ranchi as well as to the Hon'ble Governor of the Jharkhand with copy to the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Jharkhand. The respondent no. 11 submitted that there is a direct connection of the said Narayan Hansda with the petitioner which is apparent from the documents, copies of which have been placed on record as Annexures R/11/ B series.

We perused the contents of these documents whereby incident of ragging in the RIMS was brought to the notice of the RIMS administration. The RIMS administration also constituted an inquiry committee and from one of the newspaper dated 15.11.2011 it appear that the RIMS Superintendent refused to conduct the inquiry and it appears from the said report that such view may have been taken because of the constitution of the anti ragging squad by the RIMS. Than there is a news cutting that RIMS is keeping mum on the issue of ragging.

In this petition, the petitioner did not disclose all these facts which indicate that he was aware of the injuries of the respondent no. 11 and he was aware of the allegations of the ragging and he was also aware of the lodging of the complaint by the father of the respondent no. 11. He even in his application under Right to Information Act also mentioned that the respondent no. 11 has alleged with respect to the demand of ransom, but in view of the petitioner, the complainant-respondent no. 11 did not mention that how much money was demanded by the said Narayan Hansda, therefore, the petitioner was also knowing that there is some allegation against Narayan Hansda for which he wanted to take some information from the RIMS. In the same application annexed as Annexure R/11/B series of the counter affidavit, he questioned the bonafides of the complaint and mentioned that whether from above it may not be presumed that the complaint lodged b