Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—The aforesaid two writ petitions have been heard analogously and are decided by this common judgment having binding effect upon both the writ petitions.

2. The first writ petition (i.e. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 967 of 2006) has been made for the purpose of transfer of investigation of Case Crime No. 1637 of 2005 (or Case Crime No. 1634 of 2005, as there is over writing in the first information report over number of case crime which can be read both as 1637 or 1634), under Sections 394, 302 and 120-B, I.P.C., Police Station Hasanpur, District J.P. Nagar to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter called as ‘C.B.I.’) or this Court may suo moto direct the case to be transferred to the C.B.I. for proper, fair and impartial investigation.

3. In the second writ petition (i.e. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1409 of 2006) an agitation was made, for which a first information report (hereinafter called as ‘F.I.R.’) was lodged against various persons on the same day i.e. when the impugned F.I.R. in the first writ petition was lodged. Hence, the writ petition has been filed for the purpose of getting an order quashing the F.I.R. dated 11th December, 2005 registered as Case Crime No. 1638 of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 394, 307, 332, 353, 435, 336, 504, 506, I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Hasanpur, District J.P. Nagar, and not to arrest the petitioners. However, even in such writ petition transfer of investigation of the case is prayed for. At the time hearing the prayers for quashing the F.I.R. and not to arrest were dropped, and the argument of the petitioners was only made in respect of transfer of said investigation too on the similar ground as in the first writ petition.

4. According to the petitioner, he is eye-witness of murder of his real brother, namely, Jag Mohan Khadak Banshi, who was Member of Zila Panchayat from a political party. The respondent No. 6 is the State Minister and, according to the petitioner, is a hardened criminal, against whom at present 14 criminal cases are pending in the different Courts. The respondent No. 6 sat up his wife as a candidate for the office of Adhyaksha and in order to procure support the respondent No. 6 with the help of respondent No. 7 is making various efforts to win the members. They were meeting with the petitioner’s brother, who was the victim, and were pressurizing him to vote. They tried to give bribe to the victim, but when he refused, the victim was threatened. However, on 11th December, 2005 when the petitioner was with the victim and they went to the barber’s shop, the respondent No. 7 and other persons entered into the shop and fired on the victim and ran away. At the time of going the respondent No. 7 took away the licensed revolver of the victim from his body and also took away mobile from his pocket. Till after filing the F.I.R. and affidavit no one was arrested. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were pressurizing the petitioner not to support the version of the F.I.R. Aggrieved against the action of the local administration, the petitioner filed a writ petition, being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 13011 of 2005 (Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P. and others), for transferring the investigation, as mentioned above. Such writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 22nd December, 2005 by directing the Principal Secretary, Home, Government of U.P., Lucknow to consider the representation of the petitioner within a period of fortnight from the date of communication of the order upon giving fullest opportunity of hearing and by passing a reasoned order thereon. On 26th December, 2005 the petitioner made representation, and from then sufficient period has expired but neither the Principal Secretary (Home) called the petitioner nor decided the representation.

5. However, from the record we find that the date of representation is 26th December, 2005 when the date of filing of the present writ petiti