Hon’ble Devendra Pratap Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Ram Adhar Yadav and Hari Gupta, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein in the writ petition, alleged to be active members of the then ruling party, barged into the office of the District Panchayat Raj Officer in Deoria on 18.4.2006 and after misbehaving with him and manhandling the petitioner, a clerk in that office, they tore the official records, abused and threatened them. When on information no action was taken by the Police, a written information was sent to the Police Station on 20.4.2006 but the then Station Officer did not lodge any F.I.R. The employees Union thereafter took up the issue and threatened to strike work, but yet no action was forthcoming, on the ground that the intruders had political patronage of the powers that be. Having no option, an application under Section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code was lodged when the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoria passed an order on 9.5.2006 directing the Police to lodge an F.I.R. and investigate the incident. When even after expirty of one month, nothing was done, the petitioner approached this Court through the present petition in June 2006. With these basic allegations a mandate was sought to the State respondents to perform their statutory obligation and also for action against the respondent No. 6. After hearing the State the following order was passed on 19.6.2006 :

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate.

Certain persons disturbed working of the office of the District Panchayat Raj Officer and manhandled him and thus he sought to lodge an F.I.R. but to no avail. Thereafter he was forced to move an application under section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. And the Magistrate allowed the application and yet F.I.R. was not lodged nor any action was taken against the accused persons.

Superintendent of Police, Deoria, Respondent No. 2, shall file his personal affidavit on or before 22nd of June, 2006 as to why no action has been taken till date. The Station Officer, Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Deoria shall be present on 22nd of June, 2006 in person before the Court for further orders with an explanation and details of the action taken by him.

The learned Government Advocate is hereby directed to communicate this order to both the officials today.

Let a copy of this order be given to the learned Government Advocate today.

List/put up on 22nd of June, 2006.”

3. During pendency of the writ petition, certain new developments took place and apart from filing several supplementary affidavits, an amendment application was also filed which was allowed and thereafter the amended copy of the writ petition has also been filed.

4. It appears that against the order dated 9th of May 2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate for registering the FIR, a Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2006 was filed by Ram Adhar Yadav, respondent No. 4 and the said revision was allowed without hearing the petitioner vide order dated 16th June 2006 which is also challenged in this petition.

5. It further appears that a magisterial enquiry was ordered by the District Magistrate into the incidents of 18th April 2006 and an enquiry report dated 24.6.2006 was submitted by the Chief Development Officer incriminating the petitioner and other officials and based on that report the District Magistrate vide a letter dated Ist of July 2006 forwarded it to the State Government to enable it to take action against the officials. The enquiry report dated 24th of June 2006 and also the consequential letter 1.7.2006 are also under challenge.

6. It further appears that in pursuance of the same incident, the accused Ram Adhar Yadav and others also lodged a first information report which was promptly registered on 19th April 2006 and was duly registered as Case Crime No. 331 of 2006. The police has submitted charge sheet in both the cases. However, Sri Yadav filed an application dated 21.11.2006 that both