The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 should be sparingly used and only in rare and appropriate cases, and that alternative remedies available to protect fundamental and statutory rights should be pursued.

V. G. PALSHIKAR, J. :- These three petitions raise identical questions of law and therefore by consent of parties, are heard together and will be decided together by this common order.

2. Criminal Writ Petition No. 3 of 2004 has been filed by Shri Ranjitsing Sharma who retired as Commissioner of Police, Bombay. He has challenged by this petition the investigation and the FIR by which an offence under Section 3(2) and 3(5) of the MCOCA is registered against him by the police.

3. Criminal Writ Petition No. 38 of 2004 is filed by Shri Anil Gote, a sitting M. L. A. of the Maharashtra Legislature, challenging the investigation and the FIR by which provisions of MCOCA were applied to him. He has therefore challenged the entire proceedings including the FIR and has contended like Shri Ranjeet Sharma that the application of these sections is improper, illegal and therefore void.

4. The third petition being Cri W. P. No. 170 of 2004 is filed by Shri P. B. Sawant who is prosecuted along with two others in what is known as Fake Stamp scam. He also is facing an FIR challenging application of MCOCA. He has also therefore challenged the entire proceedings.

5. A reply to the petition of petitioner Shri Sharma has been filed by the State and since the questions of law only were to be agitated, the counsel for the petitioner Shri P. B. Sawant and Shri Anil Gote agreed to proceed with the matter without a detailed

reply to their cases, as according to them the contentions raised are pure questions of law. During the pendency of these petitions on 3rd February, 2004, the investigation team filed charge sheets against several accused named in it including the three petitioners in the above petitions and affidavit discloses filing of charge sheets in all the cases. The learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the investigation authority submitted that in view of the filing of the charge sheets, the petition is rendered infructuous, as according to the learned advocate general all the contentions, both on fact and law raised by all the petitioners can be squarely considered by the designated court under MCOCA and there is therefore alternate remedy available to the petitioner. He therefore claimed that the petitions are liable to be dismissed on this ground.

6. It would therefore be necessary for us to decide this preliminary objection and then consider the submissions made on merits of the case.

7. The petitioner in Cri. W. P. 3 of 2004, on 5-2-2004, has filed an application for amendment of his petition, so as to include the challenge to the charge sheet filed on 3-2-2004 as also prayed to quash the same. On the grounds already mentioned above, this application was also opposed by the learned Advocate General. However, we see no reason to deny the amendment. It is granted and the petition is considered as amended. The objections are taken to the maintainability of the petition as amended because the challenges and the contesting contentions remain the same.

8. It is pertinent to note that though all these petitions raise questions of law pertaining to the validity of the nomination of Mr. Puri as head of the investigation team, but all the learned advocates appearing on behalf of all the petitioners specifically stated before us that they do not press those questions and the petitions are restricted to the question of application of provisions of MCOCA to the petitioners only. They also do not desire to challenge application of other sections under the Indian Penal Code. According to them the basic contention, they are raising is, even if it is assumed that they have possibly committed certain crime and those crimes would be only punishable under the IPC and application of the provisions of MCOCA is mala fide and deliberate to deny them their fundamental right of liberty.

9. Shri V. R. Manohar the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Shri Sharma led the argument on behalf of all petitioners and the contentions raised by Sh