JUDGMENT Ghodeswar, J.-The petitioners, who are father and wife respectively of Shri D. Kaleshwar Rao, have filed this petition for directing the respondents to produce the person of Shri D. Kaleshwar Rao 2. Shir D. Kaleshwa Rao was in service with South Eastern Railway, headed by respondent No4. On dated 3-8-1982 he was deputed for refresher course training by the Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer, an officer under respondent No5 at the South Eastern Railway Electrical Staff Training School at Rourkela in the State of Orissa. D. Kaleshwar Rao proceeded from Nagpur for training and joined under respondent No6 on 7-8-1982. During the training period D. Kaleshwar Rao was residing at the hostel of South Eastern Railway Electrical Staff Training School. It is alleged that he was in custody of respondent Nos. 4 to 6. On dated 27-8-1982 the petitioner No1 received a telegram from South Eastern Railway Authorities informing that D. Kaleshwar Rao had become ill and he attended the South Eastern Railway Health Unit, Rourkela, at 9.30 hours, returned to the hostel at 10.30 hours and further that he went out from the hostel and did not return till 16.00 hours to the school or hostel. The petitioner No1 immediately rushed to the training center at Rourkela on 28-8-82 and met respondent No 6 Principal. The petitioner No1 contacted D.S.P. (Civil) Incharge of Steel City, Police Station, Rourkela and City Magistrate and complained to them regarding absence of his son, D. Kaleshwar Rao It is alleged that the authorities and respondents did not take any steps to trace out D. Kaleshwar Rao inspite of number of representations and requests to all concerned authorities, and the respondents have not even informed the petitioners as to whether D. Kaleshwar Rao is still alive or his where abouts. 3. The petitioners amended the petition and added respondent No7. The Inspector General of Police Cuttack, State of Orissa, as per Court's order dated 3-2-1987. Respondent No3 Director General, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, filed affidavit and stated that function of Central Bureau of Investigation is normally to enforce the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and incidental offence. It is the Contention of respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 that the authorities took necessary steps immediately. Respondent No6 sent telegram on 26-8-82 to Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer, S.E. Railway, Nagpur and other authorities. It is the Contention of respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 that the authorities took necessary steps immediately. Respondent No6 sent telegram on 26-8-82 to Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer, S.E. Railway, Nagpur and other authorities. He has lodged a report to Officer Commanding, Government Railway Police at Rourkela and also reported to the Town Police Station, Rourkela. The respondents have also reported the matter to Addl. District Magistrate, Rourkela. They also written a letter to the Station Director All India Radio, Sambalpur, on 4-9-1982 for making an announcement in English, Oriya and Hindi about the missing of Shri D.Kaleshwar Rao and such an announcement was made by All India Radio, Sambalpur. It is stated that respondent" gave all help and co-operation to petitioner No 1 when he visited Rourkela on 28-8-1982. The printed pamphlets with photo of D. Kaleshwar Rao were also pasted on Railway Coaches and public places in sorroundings and distributed in the adjacent localities by the school staff. Similarly, printed notices with photo of D. Kaleshwar Rao were displayed in different offices like Government Railway Police Station and other offices of Railways. It is the contention of respondents that they took all possible steps for tracing the person of D. Kaleshwar Rao 4. With the assistance of Smt. Choudhary, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners and Shri P.N. Chandurkar, Advocate, appearing for respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6. We have gone through the entire record of this case. Shrimati Choudhary, Advocate, argued that D. Kaleshwar Rao was in the custody and good keeping of respondents Nos. 4 and 6. D. Kaleshwar Rao was hale and hearty during his training period and he is missing from the custody of respondent No6 since 26-8-1982. Inspite of various requests and representations made by petitioner No1 the respondents have not at all made any efforts to trace out and have not even intimated about the missing of D. Kaleshwar Rao and about the progress of any steps they had taken to trace him. The petitioners have stated in para 3 of the petition that petitioner No1 received a telegram about the missing of his son from South Eastern Railway Authorities. This is the admission of petitioners which negatives their contention that respondents have not taken any steps in this connection. The petitioners have stated in para 3 of the petition that petitioner No1 received a telegram about the missing of his son from South Eastern Railway Authorities. This is the admission of petitioners which negatives their contention that respondents have not taken any steps in this connection. Smt. Choudhary, Advocate, has also contended that though the Inspector General of Police, Cuttack, State of Orissa, who is subsequently joined as respondent No7 as per Court's order dated 3-2-1987 no return has been filed on his behalf and hence it is clear that he has not taken any steps to trace out the person of D. Kaleshwar Rao Shri Chandurkar, Advocate, has pointed out that respondents have conducted a detailed enquiry in this case and they have taken all possible steps and made all necessary efforts to trace out the person of D. Kaleshwar Rao We are satisfied that respondents 2, 4, 5 and 6 have made all necessary efforts through the resources at their command. More than seven years have passed since the missing incident. It appears that D. Kaleshwar Rao had no enmity with the trainees. On that very day he was it and in fact attended the health unit, thereafter returned to the hostel and then went out. It is contended that earlier to the incident the petitioner No 1 had received a letter from D. Kaleshwar Rao informing that he was pale and hearty and therefore, he could not commit suicide. Taking into consideration the ill-health of D. Kaleshwar Rao on dated 26-8-1982 no one can be sure about this. Considering all these circumstances of the case, we are convinced that no useful purpose will be served by issuing a direction in the nature of habeas corpus. The petition is devoid of any substance. It is dismissed. Interim order dated 27-1-1987 stands vacated.