Judgment B.D.SINGH, J. 1. These two applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India raise the common question of law and the facts in the two cases are also more or less similar, therefore, both of them were heard together and they will be governed by this common judgement. It may be noted that case No. 79 of 1971 was originally under Sec. 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. However at a subsequent stage the same was treated as one under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner in case no. 79 of 1971 is the Assistant Director Purchase and Transport. River Valley Project Department, Government of Bihar, whereas P.K. Thakur, petitioner in case no. 86 was the Director of Purchase of the said Department at the relevant time. At present however, he is the Chief Engineer (Mechanical) Roads Wing. Transport and Shipping Ministry at New Delhi. Against both the petitioners first information report (vide Annexure-6 to Sec. 5(1) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 at the instance of Anti-Corruption Department (Respondent No. 3) for showing undue favour to M/s. Hindustan Wires Ltd. Calcutta, by placing order of G.I. wires. On the order of City Superintendent of Police (respondent no. 4) P.S. Case no. 27 dated 15-9-1971 was recorded against the petitioners and the investigation by the officer-in-charge of the Police-station was also started in the said P.S. case. Therefore, both the petitioners in the application prayed for quashing the said P.S. Case and meanwhile they had also prayed for staying the investigation. This Court while admitting the application however did not stay the investigation. In the applications the petitioners have impleaded the State of Bihar and the Department of River Valley Project as respondents 1 and 2 respectively. In case no. 86 however, the petitioner has impleaded also the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Anti-Corruption Department as respondent no. 5. In case no. 79 a supplementary affidavit dated 1-11-1971 was also filed on behalf of the petitioner. Cause has been shown in both the cases by respondent No. 1 by filing a counter-affidavit dated 24-11-1971. The affidavit has been sworn the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Appointment (Vigilance) Department, Government of Bihar in behalf of respondent No. 1. Thereafter the petitioners have replied to the counter-affidavit filed by the State. 2. Mr. Cause has been shown in both the cases by respondent No. 1 by filing a counter-affidavit dated 24-11-1971. The affidavit has been sworn the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Appointment (Vigilance) Department, Government of Bihar in behalf of respondent No. 1. Thereafter the petitioners have replied to the counter-affidavit filed by the State. 2. Mr. K.K. Sinha learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in case No. 79, submitted that no irregularity has been committed while placing the order for supply of G. I. wires with Hindustan Wires Ltd., Calcutta and all the relevant procedure proscribed by the memorandum on the purchase procedure laid down by Govt. of Bihar River Valley Project Department have been duly followed. The G. I. wire were required far preparing crate in order to check the ravages of Kosi flood. He pointed out that a notice inviting tender for the supply of G. I. wires was issued by the department on 11-12-1968. The last date to receive the tender was 15th of January 1969. Ultimately the orders were placed with M/s. Singhania Industrial Company. Calcutta, for supplying 450 metric tonnes and further order was placed with M/s. Aryan Engineering Allied Industries, for supply of 50 M. T. but both the companies backed out. On the 30th January, 1969, therefore, again a notice was issued inviting tender for supply of 1435 M. T. of G. I. Wires and the said notice was published in various important newspapers throughout the country. In response the following six firms 1. Messrs. Aryan Engineering and Allied industries Patna. @ Rs. 1530 per M. T. 2. M/s. Power Transmission and Casting Company, Howrah @ Rs. 1331 per M. T. 3. M/s. Singhania Industrial Co. Calcutta. @ Rs. 1358 per M. T. 4. Industrial Store Supply Co. Calcutta. @ Rs. 1365 per M. T. 5. M/s. Hindustan Wires Ltd. Calcutta. @ Rs. 1370 per M. T. 6. M/s. Ram Swarup Industrial Corporation, Calcutta. @ Rs. 1420 per M. T. tender of M/s. Power Transmission and Casting Company Howrah, and Hindustan Wires Ltd. Since the former firm was a small manufacturing company the order of only 535 M. T. was placed with them on the 26th of March, 1969 to supply G. I. wires within two months. M/s. Ram Swarup Industrial Corporation, Calcutta. @ Rs. 1420 per M. T. tender of M/s. Power Transmission and Casting Company Howrah, and Hindustan Wires Ltd. Since the former firm was a small manufacturing company the order of only 535 M. T. was placed with them on the 26th of March, 1969 to supply G. I. wires within two months. On the same day i.e. on the 26th of March, 1969 the order to supply 700 M. T. of the said wire within three months was placed with Hindustan Wires Ltd. as the record of the department showed that in the past they had shown satisfactory conduct. For the balance of the requirement, that is 200 M. T. it was decided by the department to place order with Power Transmission and Casting Company or with Hindustan Wires Ltd. on their satisfactory performance in the matter of supply of G. I. wires. The power Transmission and Casting Company showed inability to supply 535 M. T. as there was sudden breakdown of the machinery on the 8th April, 1969, and prayed for cancellation of the order. Since rainy season was fast approaching the department deputed Bindeshwari Singh, Superintending Engineer to contact various firms, including the Hindustan Wires Ltd. for the supply of 535 M. T. G. I. wires. As there was a tendency of a rise of price of such wires, no other firm agreed to supply the same, at the rate, at which the Power Transmission and Casting Company, and the Hindustan Wires Ltd. had agreed. In that circumstance, the department requested the Hindustan Wires Ltd. to supply 535 M. T. also along with the earlier order for 700 M. T. which was placed with them. For the balance of the requirement i.e. 200 M. T. since the Power Transmission and Casting Company had backed out, they department placed for supply of 200 M. T. G. I. wires also with Hindustan Wires Ltd. A repeat order as required under rule 4.9 of the Memorandum on the purchase procedure (hereinafter to be called as Purchase Procedure) was made on the 7th of May, 1969. At the time of the said repeat order Hindustan Wires Ltd. had indicated that the raw materials for the G. I. wires were not easily available, and therefore they had requested the Government to help them in getting the raw materials to enable them to supply wires in time. At the time of the said repeat order Hindustan Wires Ltd. had indicated that the raw materials for the G. I. wires were not easily available, and therefore they had requested the Government to help them in getting the raw materials to enable them to supply wires in time. Raw materials could be had from Hindustan Steel Ltd. Bhilai. It was possible to get such raw materials only when a firm was registered with the Director General of Supply and Disposal and Iron and Steel Controller. Government of India, Hindustan Wires Ltd. had got themselves so registered. No other firms who had submitted tender were so registered and therefore those other firms were not entitled to get the raw materials from Hindustan Steel, since the departments anxiety was to obtain supply of G. I. wires as soon as possible because rainy season was fast approaching. P.K. Thakur, petitioner in case no. 86 wrote a letter dated the 7th June, 1969 to the Secretary Joint Plant Committee. The copy of the said letter is marked as Annexure-1, the relevant portion of which reads as follows : "As flood protection works is of utmost importance you are requested to issue an overriding priority for supply of 6 mm dia M. S. wire rods to M/s. Hindustan Wires Ltd. for prompt execution of orders. It may kindly be ensured that M/s. Hindustan Steel Bhilai supplies at least 100 M. T. of 6 mm rods to M/s. Hindustan Wire Ltd. every month. This may kindly be given top most priority " 3. Subsequently, a news appeared on 13-10-1969 in the local daily newspaper Indian Nation that there had been a bungling of Rs. 20 lakhs in the River Valley Project Department and R. Dutta, Chief Engineer, Kosi Project, S. Prasad the then Director of Purchase and Transport and Bindeshwari Singh. Superintending Engineer were responsible for the bungling. S. Prasad, Additional Secretary therefore put a note dated 15-10-1969 to S. A. F. Abbas the then Chief Administrator River Valley Project Department. A true copy of the said note is marked as Annexure-VII, to the supplementary affidavit. Superintending Engineer were responsible for the bungling. S. Prasad, Additional Secretary therefore put a note dated 15-10-1969 to S. A. F. Abbas the then Chief Administrator River Valley Project Department. A true copy of the said note is marked as Annexure-VII, to the supplementary affidavit. In the said note he has referred to the files of the Anti-Corruption Department at page 1-16/N and has mentioned that it was unfortunate that without making full investigation into the matter or having discussed the matter with the Chief Administrator or other senior Officers of the River Project Department the Anti-Corruption Department had come to a certain conclusion without knowing full facts and had made certain remarks against certain officers. In the note he had justified placing of the order of G. I. Wires with Hindustan Wires Ltd. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, according to him. Hindustan Wires Ltd. was found by the Department to be a reliable supplier and they were manufacturers of G. I. wires. It was neither a case of bungling nor a case of any motivated irregularity in placing the order. 4. Mr. Sinha submitted that the Indian Nation further came out with a longer report on the 27th October, 1969 in which it was said that the State Anti-Corruption Department had recommended that the Government should ask explanation from the three top officials of the Kosi Project Department for the alleged bungling of Rs. 20 lakhs in the purchase of galvanized wires. Therefore some of those officials were seeking permission from the Stale Government to proceed against the Indian Nation. Hence the matter was examined in creator detail by the Chief Administrator, Mr. Abbas. He therefore referred his note (Annexure-4) dated 14-11-1969 to Shri T.P. Singh one of the Advisers to the Governor during the earlier Presidents Rule. Mr. Abbas also in his note had justified the deal and has mentioned therein that it was quite regular. He further mentioned that Hindustan Wires Ltd. are entitled to get supply of raw materials from the producers and it is for Iron and Steel Controller to ensure that all such manufacturers get their quota of steel. In that back ground Hindustan Wires Ltd., wrote to the officers of the department about the difficulties which they were facing in obtaining 6 mm. wire rods. In that back ground Hindustan Wires Ltd., wrote to the officers of the department about the difficulties which they were facing in obtaining 6 mm. wire rods. This led to the department to write to the Joint Plant Committee on the 7th of June, 1969, for help to the Hindustan Wires Ltd. in securing supplies from Hindustan Steel, Ltd. Bhilai, Mr. Sinha also referred to a portion of his note in his connection which reads : "These steps were taken in our on interest since we wanted the supplies to be expedited. If there was a genuine shortage of rods, the fabricators could not clearly manufacture wires. If a step of this nature can be dubbed as "undue favour" we might as well stop taking any initiative in procurement in and go to sleep after having placed the order on the suppliers." 5. Learned counsel thereafter drew our attention to the note of Shri T.P. Singh (Annexure-5) dated 18-11-1969 addressed to the Chief Secretary. As regards permission for pursuing against the "Indian Nation" he advised : "I suppose we all have to live with the kind of atmosphere we have around us, and for myself. I have decided to develop a thickish skin. Reference from various Deptts. of Government and requests from individual officers may however be dealt with on merits i.e. it need not be assumed that they have managed to develop a sufficiently thick skin in respect of press criticism, informed, uninformed or misinformed." 6. Mr. Sinha in order to persuade us that in the instant case no violation has been committed of any of the rules of purchase procedure, has referred to the various rules. Rule 4.5 provides that except to the extent of the power delegated to the Director of Purchase, decision on the tenders will be made by the Chief Engineer. Where the value exceeds the power of the Chief Engineer the proposal will be placed before the Committee, the Emergency Committee or the Control Board as the case may be. Rule 4.4 indicates the power of different officers of the Department to sanction purchase. This rule further provides that proposal shall go before the Emergency Committee or the Control Board after the Chief Engineer and the Financial Adviser have examined them. Rule 4.4 indicates the power of different officers of the Department to sanction purchase. This rule further provides that proposal shall go before the Emergency Committee or the Control Board after the Chief Engineer and the Financial Adviser have examined them. Rule 4.3 provides that in certain cases the Chief Engineer is to exercise his power with the help of a Committee consisting of officers mentioned therein. Rule 4.6 lays down that ordinarily, the lowest offer shall be accepted provided this is strictly in accordance with the specification given in the tender. If it is felt that the lowest offer will not meet the indentors requirement, a tender other than the lowest may be accepted but the reasons for doing so shall be recorded. Rule 4.7 lays down that the Financial Adviser shall be consulted on all purchase proposals before the purchase order issues. Rule 4.9 which has been referred to earlier relates to "repeat order". It mentions that in the event of repeat order for supply of additional quantity order may be placed against the previous offer. 7. Mr. Sinha submitted that these rules provide sufficient check and balance. No irregularity could have been confuted by any of the petitioners in the deal with the Hindustan Wires Ltd. Lastly he referred to rule 4.11 which states that the purchase order shall ordinarily issue over the signature of the Director of Purchase. A copy of it shall invariably be endorsed to the Indenting Officer, the Consignee, the Financial Adviser and the Resident Audit Officer. 8. Learned counsel drew our attention to paragraph 9 of the application, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is the Assistant Director of Purchase and Transport whose duty is to assist the Director of Purchase and Transport in his duty. On the basis of this, learned counsel, alternatively, submitted that the petitioner being only the Assistant Director of Purchase had no hand at all in the deal, and he was not at all responsible for any unauthorised act or omission in the matter. He invited our attention to paragraphs 34, 35, 36 and 40 of the application to show that a mala fide prosecution was launched against the petitioners by the Anti-Corruption Department. It will be useful to quote those paragraphs in extenso : "Paragraph 34. He invited our attention to paragraphs 34, 35, 36 and 40 of the application to show that a mala fide prosecution was launched against the petitioners by the Anti-Corruption Department. It will be useful to quote those paragraphs in extenso : "Paragraph 34. That Sree S.A.F. Abbas in his report had snubbed the Anti-Corruption Department for rushing to the press in utterly irresponsible manner and that too without any data. Anti-Corruption Department felt sore and since then is in look out to harm the reputation of the River Valley Projects Department and its officials." "Paragraph 35. That after the end of the Advisers regime, the Anti-Corruption Department through political manoeuvres appears to have obtained the permission of the Superintendent of Police, Patna and instituted a case under Sections 5(i) and 5(ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act against the Petitioner and the then Director of Purchase and Transport Sree P.K. Thakur (and he commenced investigation). The true of the F.I.R. is annexure-6." "Paragraph 36. That the case has been instituted simply to harass the petitioner and Sree P.K. Thakur due to aforesaid malice." "Paragraph 40. That the prosecution of the petitioner and Sri Thakur at the hands of Anti-Corruption Department is wholly mala fide and amounts to abuse of the power." 9. Mala fide has also been alleged also in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the supplementary affidavit. It will be relevant to quote those paragraphs as well : "Paragraph 8. That the mala fide of the Anti-Corruption Department is apparent from the facts that though it was known to the department that Addl. Secretary R. V. P. Deptt. after examining the records came to the conclusion that there was no shady deal and everything was done in the best of the interest of the State and this fact was approved by Sri. T.P. Singh the then Senior Adviser of the Governor, but still, they ventured to lodge first information report on incorrect allegation." "Paragraph 9. That the Anti-Corruption Department with mala fide intention has ignored the fact that under the rules the petitioner being only an Assistant Director of Purchase was neither entitled to nor has taken part in any of the transaction. His duty was only to submit notes and it was for the higher up to accent or reject his notes in their individual judgement. He nowhere comes in the picture and Sri. His duty was only to submit notes and it was for the higher up to accent or reject his notes in their individual judgement. He nowhere comes in the picture and Sri. P.K. Thakur is responsible." "Paragraph 10. That though the matter regarding purchase of G. I. wires was thoroughly enquired into by the head of the department namely the then Chief Administrator in River Valley Project who clearly found as fact that the impugned transaction was not dishonest and shady deal and his report was confirmed by the Government through the then Adviser to the Governor Sri T.P. Singh I. C. S. the present Criminal Proceeding instituted and investigation started at the instance of Anti-Corruption Department is wholly mala fide and without any justification. "Paragraph 11. That on the special fuels of this case the investigation by the Police in any event is unnecessary and must be stopped as proceeding with it will be mala fide exercise and abuse of the power of investigation." He referred to the counter affidavit, which has been filed on behalf of the State. The allegations regarding the mala fide has not been denied by the State of Bihar in the counter-affidavit. He drew our particular attention to paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit which reads as : "That so far there is no evidence if any of these officers involved had benefited by showing undue favour to M/s. Hindustan Wires Ltd. The investigation is in beginning stage at present." Learned counsel has therefore submitted that the investigation against the petitioners, in the circumstances, should be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to substantiate his contention he placed reliance on S.N. Sharma V/s. Bipen Kumar Tiwari ( AIR 1970 SC 786 ). He invited our attention to paragraph 7 of the Judgement at page 789. In order to substantiate his contention he placed reliance on S.N. Sharma V/s. Bipen Kumar Tiwari ( AIR 1970 SC 786 ). He invited our attention to paragraph 7 of the Judgement at page 789. The relevant portion of which reads as : "It appears to us that, though the Code of Criminal Procedure gives to the Police unfettered power to investigate all cases where they suspect that a cognizable offence has been committed, in appropriate cases an aggrieved person can always seek a remedy by invoking the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution under which, if the High Court could be convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by a police officer mala fide, the High Court can always issue a writ of mandamus restraining the police officer from misusing his legal powers. The fact that the Code does not contain any other provision giving power to a Magistrate to stop investigation by the police cannot be a ground for holding that such a power must be read in Sec.159 of the Code." 10. Mr. B.K. Banerji, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner in case No. 86, adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Sinha and drew our attention to some of the facts, which are relevant for consideration of his case. He referred to paragraph 9 of the application, wherein it is stated that the petitioner was Director of Purchase and Transport from 25th of May, 1965 to 5th of July, 1969. He was carrying his duties honestly and strictly according to the rules laid down by Government. In paragraph 25 it is further stated that on the 5th of July, 1969, the petitioner made over charge of the aforesaid department and on the 7th July, 1969, took over charge as the Chief Engineer (Mechanical) in Transport and Shipping Ministry at New Delhi. Since he made over charge, he has done nothing in connection with the transaction relating to the G.I. Wires, and in no way he was responsible for the same. Learned counsel also drew our attention to paragraphs 32 to 36 of the application. He has also repeated that due to mala fide the Anti-Corruption Department has proceeded against the petitioner and the department. Learned counsel also drew our attention to paragraphs 32 to 36 of the application. He has also repeated that due to mala fide the Anti-Corruption Department has proceeded against the petitioner and the department. In the first information report (Annexure-6) referred to above, the material facts which establish the bona fide of the petitioners have been deliberately suppressed and distorted facts have been given in order to prejudice the case of the petitioners. In the counter-affidavit also learned counsel submitted that the State has suppressed the important materials and has given distorted facts. The Anti-Corruption Department has alleged that M/s. Hindustan Steel Ltd. had already supplied to M/s. Hindustan Wires Ltd. 2076 M. T. of various types of raw materials from February to June 1969. If Hindustan Wires Ltd. had already large quantity of raw materials what was the necessity for Mr. Thakur to write the letter dated 7-6-1969 to the Secretary Joint Plant Committee requesting him to supply 6 mm. dia M. S. Wire rods to M/s. Hindustan Wire Ltd. for prompt execution of the orders and to ensure that M/s. Hindustan Steel, Bhilai should supply at least 100 M. T. of 6 mm rods to M/s. Hindustan Wires Ltd. every month. Mr. Banerji submitted that this allegation also is not correct. M/s. Hindustan Wires Ltd. are a big manufacturers and they had to supply finished products to various other departments with which the River Valley Project Department had no concern, which has been stated in para 9 of the reply to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar and others. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that the investigation against the petitioner of this case should also be quashed. On other hand Mr. Chatrapati Kumar Sinha, appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar, respondent no. 1, and others, placed before us the counter-affidavit, on the basis of which he urged that there was enough material for pursuing against the petitioners in the two cases. Even if there is no evidence at present to show that the petitioners were in any way benefited by showing undue favour to M/s. Hindustan Wires Ltd. that by itself is no ground for not proceeding against them. He drew our attention to Sec. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act which reads as : A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct...... He drew our attention to Sec. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act which reads as : A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct...... if he by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage." He also referred to the letter dated the 7th June, 1969, addressed to the Secretary Joint Plant Committee, the relevant portion of which has already been quoted earlier. He laid emphasis that in the said letter request was made to supply at least 100 mm of 6 mm rods to M/s. Hindustan Wires Ltd., every month. Learned counsel submitted that it dearly showed that the department was out to give undue favour to M/s. Hindustan Wires Ltd. Every month would clearly mean for all time to come. No limit was placed as to upto what period they have to get raw materials at that rate. On the other hand Mr. Banerji contended that it has to be read in the context. The opening line of the letter mentions that the department had placed bulk order for supply of 1400 M/T of 8-10 gauge G. I. Wires with M/s. Hindustan Wires Ltd. and are proposing to place another order for about 500 M/T with them. In that view of the matter he submitted that it would obviously mean for supply of raw materials to Hindustan Wires Ltd., till they had supplied 1400 plus 500 M/T. 11. In my opinion, it is not necessary at this stage to decide as to what the letter means. It is also neither possible nor desirable at present to decide as to which version is correct. The main point now to be decided is, as to whether the investigation against the petitioners should be quashed. It is true that in the counter-affidavit various allegations made by the petitioners regarding the mala fide have not been specifically controverted. In the counter affidavit, they have simply tried to justify the lodging of F.I.R. against the petitioners. Even in the absence of such denial, in my opinion, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the onus is upon the petitioners to establish the mala fide. In the counter affidavit, they have simply tried to justify the lodging of F.I.R. against the petitioners. Even in the absence of such denial, in my opinion, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the onus is upon the petitioners to establish the mala fide. It may be seen that in various paragraphs of the applications the petitioners have made general allegations against the Anti-Corruption Department and no allegation was made against any particular officer of the said department. Besides at present the investigation against the petitioners, is being conducted by the Police. In AIR 1970 SC 786 (supra) allegation regarding the mala fide was specifically alleged against the particular Police, who was conducting the investigation therefore, their Lordships had quashed the investigation. In the instant case petitioners have not pleaded mala fide against the investigating officer. They simply made general allegations of mala fide against the Anti-corruption Department. Therefore in my opinion even if in the counter-affidavit there is no denial about mala fide, the petitioners cannot take advantage. Reference may be made to the case of C.S. Rowjee V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh ( AIR 1964 SC 962 ) where their Lordships at pages 969 and 970 observed : "It is no doubt, true that allegation of mala fide and of improper motives on the part of those in power are frequently made and their frequency has increased in recent times. It is also somewhat unfortunate that allegations of this nature which have no foundation in fact are made in several of the cases which have come up before this and other Courts and it is found that they have been made merely with a view to cause prejudice or in the hope that whether they have basis in fact or not some of it at least might slick. Consequently it has become the duty of the Court to scrutinise these allegations with care so as to avoid being in any manner influenced by them, in cases where they have no foundation in fact. Consequently it has become the duty of the Court to scrutinise these allegations with care so as to avoid being in any manner influenced by them, in cases where they have no foundation in fact. In this task which is thus cast on the courts it would conduce to a more satisfactory disposal and consideration of them if those against whom allegations are made came forward to place before the Court either their denials or their version of the matter so that the Court may be in a position to judge as to whether onus that lies upon those who make allegations of mala fides on the part of authorities of the status of those with which this appeal is concerned have discharged their burden of proving it. In the absence of such affidavits or of materials placed before the Court by these authorities the Court is left to judge of the veracity of the allegation merely on tests of probability with nothing more substantial by way of answer. This is precisely the situation which we find ourselves in the present case." In the instant case also since there has been no specific denial regarding the mala fide we have to scrutinise with care regarding the veracity of the allegations on the test of probability. Since there is no allegation against any specific officer of the department regarding the mala fide, we do not attach much importance to those allegations. Reference may be made to a recent Full Bench Judgement of this Court in the case of N.P. Mathur V/s. State., AIR 1972 Pat 93 . Untwalia, J. while dealing with the question of mala fide observed at page 124. "On mere suspicion that the order has been made mala fide, it cannot be struck down. To interfere with it on the ground of such an attack, very cogent reasons and crystal grounds are necessary. The facts must be proved by a person who wants to attack an executive order on the ground of mala fide to show that the irresistible conclusion is that the sole motive or purpose or in any event the dominant one was such as was neither legal nor honest. It is only then that an order can be held to have been made mala fide and can be struck down as such. It is only then that an order can be held to have been made mala fide and can be struck down as such. It is to be noticed that of late a practice has grown to attack all sorts of executive orders on vague grounds of mala fides. But it is to be pointed out that such attacks are made without appreciation of the true, legal position in this regard." It will also be relevant to note that paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit referred to above clearly indicates that the Anti-Corruption Department had no mala fide, as it has been fairly conceded that so far no evidence has been found that the petitioners were personally benefited by the said deal. 12. In the light of the above discussion. I am not inclined to interfere at the investigation stage. When we enquired from the State counsel as to how far the investigation has advanced, he submitted that investigation at present is, at a stand still, as the case diary has been called for by this Court. In my opinion, it is hardly a reason for delaying the investigation. This Court had not stayed the investigation by its order, which I have referred to earlier. The officer in charge could have easily conducted the investigation by opening a supplementary case diary. Besides, he must have a copy of the case diary. In such cases, particularly, when high officers of the department are involved, investigation should not have been delayed. Since the investigation has already been unnecessarily delayed. I direct that final form must now be submitted within three months after the receipt of the record from this Court. Let the records be sent down immediately. 13. In the result, both the applications are dismissed with the above observation with regard to the submission of final form. S.WASIUDDIN, J. 14 I agree.