Order We have perused the progress report dated August 28, 1997. We are sorry to say that there has been very little progress during the intervening five weeks. As a matter of fact, the pace of investigation appears to have considerably slowed down ever since the new Director (Sri R.C. Sharma) assumed charge of the office on June 30, 1997, which becomes evident if the last two reports are compared to the previous one. We do not think it is just a coincidence. The events, which we do not want to refer to in this order, suggest otherwise. The state of affairs can be gauged from the fact that in case No. 64(A)/96 in which the then Director had approved prosecution of the accused persons more than two months ago, the proposal for sanction has not yet been submitted to the Government and other sanctioning authorities. Not a single new case has been sent to the Director for his approval. There has been little progress at the lower levels as well as the whole investigating team appears to be demoralised and in a state of inertia. 2. The Supreme Court in S.L.P. (civil) Nos. 20680-81 of 1996 (Union of India & ors. vs. Sushil Kumar Modi & ors.) [1996 (2) PLJR, 218 (SC) = (1996) 6 SCC 500 ] arising out of the present proceedings, observed, "the Director at the helm of affairs is duty bound to make a fair, honest and complete investigation into the accusations and to identify all the culprits involved in the scam and to take the necessary steps in accordance with law for the trial of all accused. The ultimate responsibility to ensure a fair, honest and complete investigation into the accusations is that of the Director, CBI and he is expected to discharge his duty and functions faithfully towards the end". 3. In the above circumstances, we think it appropriate to ask the Director, CBI, to explain the reasons for the tardy investigation. 4. In supplementary affidavit filed on August 27, 1997 in C.W.J.C No. 602 of 1996 (R) it has been stated that in terms of the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court, directions in the matter of conducting investigation as may be required by the CBI, are to be solicited from the Chief Justice or any the Bench constituted by him in that regard. However, the Director has been submitting reports to the Union of India which is against the spirit of the Supreme Court orders. Reference was made to another order of the Supreme Court, arising out of the present proceeding, in Civil Appeal Nos. 304-309 of 1997 (Union of India & ors. vs. Sushil Kumar Modi & ors.), reported in 1997 (1) PLJR 53 (SC) = (1997) 4 SCC 770 , wherein it has been stated that the nature of the proceeding before this Court in the present case is some what similar to the proceedings in Writ Petition (Cr.) Nos. 340 -343 of 1993 (Vineet Narain & ors. vs. Union of India & ors.) and Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 640 of 1995 (Anukul Chandra Pradhan vs. Union of India & ors.). Our attention was drawn to the following observations in Vineet Narain's case, quotes in the said order, (at page 777 of SCC): "To eliminate any impression of bias and avoid erosion of credibility of the investigations being made by the CBI and any reasonable impression of lack of fairness and objectivity therein, it is directed that the CBI would not take any instructions from, report to, or furnish any particulars thereof to any authority personally interested in or likely to be affected by the outcome of the investigations..." 5. We do not want to mention facts which have been stated in the supplementary affidavit. We will consider the matter after the Director, CBI, files his explanation. We would, however, like to observe that if the Director had any grievance against any officer's investigating/supervising AHD scam cases, he should have taken this court in confidence and sought instructions. Prima facie, we do not feel happy about the manner in which reports were submitted bypassing this Court altogether. 6. Let the Director, CBI, submit his explanation on oath within two weeks. 7. It is open to the Joint Director, CBI (East) to also submit explanation, with a copy to the Director. 8. Mr. S.P Mishra, Deputy Legal Advisor, CBI (AHD) Patna, states that he will communicate this order as soon as a copy is made available, to the Director, CBI. 9. This matter will be taken up for hearing on 12th September, 1997. 10. Let notice of I.A. nos. 8. Mr. S.P Mishra, Deputy Legal Advisor, CBI (AHD) Patna, states that he will communicate this order as soon as a copy is made available, to the Director, CBI. 9. This matter will be taken up for hearing on 12th September, 1997. 10. Let notice of I.A. nos. 3657 and 3658 of 1997 be issued to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Director General and I.G. Police, Bihar, returnable on September 12, 1997. 11. The petitioners are permitted to serve the notice personally on the said two officers. The office shall hand over the processes through their counsel for personal service. Mr. Ganga Prasad Roy, Additional Advocate General, states that he will also inform the officers. 12. An affidavit sworn by Sri Ashok Kumar, Assistant Director, has been filed on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate stating, inter alia, that the matter relating to violation of FERA Regulations is still in progress and efforts are being made to finalise the same expeditiously. Mr. Ajay Kumar Tripathi submitted that in order to enable the Enforcement Directorate to effectively investigate into the matter, direction may be issued to the CBI and the Income Tax Department to extend necessary co-operation. He stated that some of the persons who are subject of investigation are in judicial remand and therefore it has not been possible to interrogate them so far. He, however, assured that steps will be taken to record their statements in accordance with law at the earliest. We hope and trust that the Enforcement Directorate will perform its statutory duty and the CBI and Income Tax Department will provide necessary co-operation. 13. Mr. Ganga Prasad Roy, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CBI counsel, made submissions regarding the enquiry/investigation with respect to un-natural death of Harish Khandelwal. Order reserved. 14. Let a copy of this order be handed over to M/s Rakesh Kumar/S.P Mishra, for the CBI, Mr. Ganga Prasad Roy, for the State, Mr. L.N. Rastogi for the Income-tax Department, Mr. A.K. Tripathi for the Union of India/Enforcement Directorate and Mr. Ravi Shanker Prasad for the petitioners.