JUDGMENT:

1) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for parties, petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal. A. THE CHALLENGE

2) Petition raises challenge to Orders dated 9 March 2018 and 17 March 2018 passed by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India under provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of Indian Telegraphs Act, 1998 directing interception of telephonic messages to and from Petitioner’s mobile phones numbers and disclosure thereof to Director, CBI. B. FACTS

3) Narration of few basic facts, shorn of unnecessary details, as a prologue to the judgment would be necessary. Petitioner came to be appointed as Labour Enforcement Officer, (Central) in the year 1987. In 2017, he was posted as Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) at Dehradun, Uttarakhand. By order dated 9 October 2017, he was transferred to Mumbai where he joined on 11 October 2017 and started functioning as Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central). While working in Mumbai, the Petitioner had procured two mobile phone numbers, viz. 8218574304 and 9968004524. On 9 March 2018, first Respondent passed order authorising interceptio