GYANCHAND VERMA Vs. SUDHAKAR B PUJARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned APP for the respondent-State, and respondent No. 1 who is appearing in person. The Division Bench of this Court has pronounced its judgment and order on 24th January, 2011 in Writ Petition No. 3143 of 2009, which was reserved for judgment 8b order on 8th December, 2010. There was difference of opinion between the two learned Single Judges, which comprised the Division Bench namely Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Mr. Justice A.P. Bhangale. In view of the difference of opinion, the Hon'ble Chief Justice was pleased to refer the matter to a third Judge and therefore, accordingly, this matter was assigned to this Court. The brief facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under-

(2.) THE petitioner was working in the police Department and he retired in the year 2003. A complaint was filed in respect of an incident which had taken place regarding appointment of the officers by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as an Investigating Officer. FIR was filed. In the FIR it was averred that name of the petitioner was not mentioned as an accused. In all ten charge-sheets have been filed. In the first five charge-sheets, name of the petitioner was not shown as a suspect, and thereafter in the sixth charge- sheet his name has been shown as a sus- pect. Further investigation under section 173(8) Cri. P.C. was going on. According to respondent No. 1, the said investigation has not been completed. THE learned APP, however, after taking instructions submits that investigation is over. He also submits that respondent No. 1 is no longer an Investigating Officer of the said crime. Respondent No. 1 filed an application for an intervention in this case, on the ground that since allegations of mala fide intention were levelled against him by the petitioner and the State, he decided to intervene in this case. THE learned senior Counsel Mr. Jethmalani, after taking instructions from his client who is present in the Court, submits that the petitioner does not wish to make any allegations of mala fide against respondent No. 1 in this petition and if any such allegations are made in this petition, the same shall stand withdrawn. THE statement is accepted.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned APP appearing for the State, supported the view taken by the Single Judge, Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar. He submitted that the investigation was over, and therefore, respondent No. 1 in fact did not have any locus to intervene in this case. Advocate Mr. Murthy tried to intervene on behalf of the petitioner who had filed Public Interest Litigation on behalf of Mihir Thatte, a journalist and Aparna Dube & Ors., the candidates who had appeared in the said examination. In my view, these interveners do not have any locus to intervene in this writ petition. They did not intervene before the Division Bench, when the matter was finally disposed of and as such they do not have any right now to intervene when the matter was referred by the Chief Justice to this Court. He sought permission to intervene. Permission to intervene is declined.