RANJITSING BRAHMAJEETING SHRAMA Vs. KISAN BABURAO HAZARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE reliefs sought: ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma, formerly Commissioner of Police, mumbai and presently in detention at the Yerawada Central Prison, Pune, in pursuance of the investigation by the Special Investigation Team in the fake stamps' case has moved this application. The reliefs which he seeks are: (a) The recalling of an order dated 24th September, 2003 passed by a division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Chief Justice C. K. Thakker)was a party; (b) The setting aside of a Government Resolution dated 26th september, 2003; and (c) An injunction retraining Shri S. S. Puri from exercising the powers of the Director General of Police and to injunct him from being part of the Special Investigating Team ("sit") for conducting any investigation in respect of the fake stamps' case including Crime Register No. 135 of 2002 of the Bund Garden Police Station, Pune. The applicant has been impleaded as a party to the Writ Petition 865 of 2003 and is the sixth respondent thereto.

(2.) THE Supreme Court, while hearing a batch of petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and Criminal Miscellaneous petitions associated therewith, clarified by an order dated 3rd February, 2004 that "the High Court of Bombay is not precluded from considering Criminal Application No. 91 of 2004, pending before it". In view of this order pas'sed by the Supreme Court, we have proceeded to hear final arguments on behalf of all the contesting parties to the Criminal Application that falls for consideration before the Court.

(3.) BEFORE we proceed to elaborate upon the issues which arise before the court, we begin this judgment by adverting to two orders that were passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 4th September, 2003 and on 24th September, 2003. The applicant before this Court has made a statement through learned Counsel appearing on his behalf in these proceedings that he accepts the correctness of the order that was passed on 4th September, 2003 and seek to impugn the validity only of the subsequent order that was passed by the Court on 24th September, 2003. In order to place the controversy in perspective, it would be necessary to advert to both the orders. ORDER DATED 4th SEPTEMBER, 2003: