JUDGMENT The Court: The petitioner no. 1, General Secretary of National Union of Water Front Workers and the petitioner no. 2, General Secretary of the West Bengal Dock Mazdoor Union, both being members of the respondent no. 13, Calcutta Dock Labour Board, have filed this writ application, inter alia, for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of certiorari directing the concerned respondents to produce before this Court as many as 11 records which pertain to an order passed by a Deputy Director of Central Bureau of Investigation, U.N. Biswas by name, whereby and whereunder the proceedings as against the respondent no. 7, was directed to be closed. The petitioners have, inter alia, alleged that various acts of omissions and commissions on the part of the respondent no. 7 have been brought to the notice of the Central Bureau of Investigation purported to be on the basis of the alleged audit report which are as under:- "(a) Non-realisation of decreed amount from the defaulting employer resulting in the loss of Rs. 10.77 lacs; (b) Loss of revenue due to non-utilisation of vacant spaces to the extent of Rs. 23.99 lacs; (c) Loss of Rs. 7.60 lacs due to non-investment of accumulated cash balance in short term deposits; (d) Use of hired cars resulting in avoidable expenditure to the tune of Rs. 1.79 lacs; (e) Use of departmental hired cars at Calcutta while on tour at outstations; (f) Less payment of house rent allowance to Calcutta Port Trust for occupation of quarters;" The matter was initially taken up by the respondent no. 3, but he declined to take any direct action as against the said respondent despite the fact that a part of the allegation had been found prima facie to be correct by the said authority himself. Mr. Arunava Ghosh, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, inter alia, has drawn this court's attention to Annexure BI, BII and a part of Annexure 'E', which is at Page 71 of the writ petition, and submitted that a bare perusal of the three documents would show that the signature of the Chairman on the proposal had been superimposed. The learned Counsel submits that from the report of the Central Bureau of Investigation it would appear that CBI itself had found out a prima facie case for financial irregularity committed by the respondent no. The learned Counsel submits that from the report of the Central Bureau of Investigation it would appear that CBI itself had found out a prima facie case for financial irregularity committed by the respondent no. 7 for a sum of Rs. 2,490.50 in respect of hiring of a vehicle from a Transport Contractor. However, according to the said authority such a prima facie offence may, at the highest, call for a departmental inquiry and does not warrant any further CBI action. Relying on the basis of the decisions of the Apex Court in Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. reported in 1994 Supp. (2) SCC, Vineet Narain & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in (1996) 2 SCC 199 and Vineet Narain and Ors. vs. Union of India and Anr., reported in (1998) 1 SCC Vol. 1, the learned Counsel submitted that the court in view of the inaction on the part of an investigating authority, namely, the Central Bureau of Investigation as also the respondent no. 13, should adopt the same procedure so that an investigation may be carried out by the Central Bureau of Investigation under its supervision. The learned counsel contends that although the aforementioned orders have been passed by the Apex Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, such a direction should be considered to be as a law laid down by Apex Court under Article 141 thereof and followed by the High Court. This Court's attention has further been drawn to the fact that although in paragraph 3 of the affidavit in opposition affirmed by one Mukul Sengupta on behalf of Central Bureau of Investigation various allegations have been made as against the petitioners but the contents thereof have been verified as submissions to this Court. Mr. P.K. Roy, learned counsel on behalf of the CBI on the other hand submitted that in terms of CBI Crime Manual functions have been assigned to various authorities and the Joint Director being the respondent no. 3 was not competent to investigate into the alleged misconduct on the part of the respondent no. 7 and as such he had issued a letter dated 15th January, 1996 which is to the following effect:- “Since the subject case has not been registered under orders of competent authority, this may be treated as in-fructuous and may, therefore, be closed. 3 was not competent to investigate into the alleged misconduct on the part of the respondent no. 7 and as such he had issued a letter dated 15th January, 1996 which is to the following effect:- “Since the subject case has not been registered under orders of competent authority, this may be treated as in-fructuous and may, therefore, be closed. However, a fresh proposal may be sent, if warranted, for consideration of the competent authority.” It has been pointed out that thereafter the matter has thoroughly been investigated and it was found that the matter does not call for any regular enquiry but at best calls for a departmental proceeding. The learned Counsel contends that there has not been any inaction on the part of the CBI nor any mala fide has been alleged against it and in that view of the matter this Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. With reference to Annexure B-I and B-II and the document which is at page 71 of the writ petition, the learned counsel points out that from Annexure B-I it would appear that there exists a blank horizontal mark and as such there exists a suspicion as regards the genuineness thereof. However, according to the learned counsel CBI was given a copy of the Annexure B-I and only on the basis thereof the enquiry proceeded. Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13 at the outset submitted that although a joint affidavit has been filed which has been affirmed by the respondent no. 7 the said respondent is no longer with the respondent no. 13 on and from 20th October, 1996. According to the learned counsel the said respondent is a permanent employee of the Calcutta Port Trust and had been deputed to the respondent no. 13 for a limited period. It has been pointed out that although this writ application has been filed by the petitioner but despite the fact that they were members of the respondent no. 13 board, they never brought the matter to the notice of the Board. Had, according to the learned counsel, the said matter been brought to the notice of the Board it could have prompted the Board to clarify the doubts and/or an enquiry could have been made as to whether the respondent no. 13 board, they never brought the matter to the notice of the Board. Had, according to the learned counsel, the said matter been brought to the notice of the Board it could have prompted the Board to clarify the doubts and/or an enquiry could have been made as to whether the respondent no. 7 committed any financial irregularity in signing the Log Book on the day on which he was out of Calcutta. According to the learned counsel from a perusal of the affidavit in opposition it would appear that a car allotted to the officers of the Board including the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman are not only used by the authority concerned but also used by the other officers and as a Head of the Department, the concerned officer has to sign the Log Book not only for the purpose of certifying that the car had been used for the official purpose but also for the purpose of making payment to the owner of the car from whom the said car had been taken on hire. This Court's attention has further been drawn to the various paragraphs of the affidavit-in-opposition to show that such a small matter could have been sorted out in a meeting of the Board but not only this writ application has been filed but publications in the newspapers have been made against the respondent no. 7 whose performance as Deputy Chairman of the respondent no. 13 was excellent. It has further been pointed out that the respondent no. 7 had in fact issued a letter to the respondent no. 3 stating the relevant facts. The learned counsel also produced the original file before this Court to show that Annexures B-I and B-II, the contents whereof had been verified by the petitioner no. 1 who has affirmed the affidavit in support of the writ application as true to his knowledge, the said documents are missing from the original record. Mr. Ghosh appearing on behalf of the petitioner in reply submitted that it is too late in the day to contend that the documents which are contained in Annexure B-I and B-II are missing from the official records inasmuch as the said documents admittedly have been supplied by the CBI. According to the learned counsel in view of the inaction on the part of the respondent no. According to the learned counsel in view of the inaction on the part of the respondent no. 13 Board, the petitioner had to take up the matter with the Ministry and keeping in view the interest of the affairs of the Board they have filed the application and as such their action cannot be said to be mala fide. Before adverting to the questions raised in this application, from a perusal of the CBI Crime Manual it appears that there is an administrative division in terms whereof a Joint Director is entitled to carry on investigation in relation to the employees who are Group A servant getting the scale of pay specified therein and similarly the Additional Director is entitled to obtain information from the registration of case, official report and follow up action etc. in respect of the types of case involved in respect of Group A Government servant getting the scale of pay specified therein. Although the matter was earlier referred to the respondent no. 3, he in view of the aforementioned position was constrained to place on record that he had no jurisdiction in the matter and as such the aforementioned note-sheet dated 15th July, 1996 as contained in annexure A to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the CBI was issued. At one stage a number of allegations have been made as against the respondent no. 7. The writ petitioner also had brought the same to the notice of the Ministry of Surface Transport, Government of India which is contained in Annexure E to the writ application and the same attracted the attention of the news media as would appear from Annexures F and G to the writ petition. It is, however, now not in dispute that the aforementioned alleged financial irregularity is confined to only a sum of Rs. 2490.50 p which is said to have been prima facie established. The respondent no. 7 brought to the notice of the respondent no. 3 the entire facts and further stated the reasons as to why false and baseless allegations have been raised against him as he stirred the Hornet's Nest by his achievements which are detailed as follows:- (i) Average productivity increased from 88 tones to 129 tonnes per hook per shift for non-containerised charge and from 365 tonnes to 440 tonnes per hook per shift for containerised charge. (ii) Direct recovery of charges on warehouse containers were introduced and Board's income on this account went up from Rs. 42.45 lakhs in 1993-94 to Rs. 13.62 crores in 1995-96 and is expected to go up to Rs. 19.00 crores in 1996-97. (iii) Board's financial performance improved vastly and recurring budgetary deficit in the year 1993-94 (9.53 crores) and 1994-95 (10.29 crores) could be wiped out. The Board turned around completely in the year 1995-96 which started with a budgeted deficit of 14.03 crores but ended with a surplus of Rs. 44 lakhs (approx.). The current year 1996-97 is expected to end with a surplus exceeding Rs. 5 crores (approx.) (iv) 5 days week system was introduced w.e.f. 1.9.96 entailing considerable savings in expenditure on telephone, electricity and transport etc. (v) Two-shift working system was introduced in Booking Section in lieu of 3 shift working system w.e.f. 1.9.96. This reduced the requirement of man-power for manning the booking counters. Besides, it would entail much savings in overtime/holiday allowance estimated Rs. 4.00 lakhs per year. (vi) A number of pension issues outstanding for several years were settled and a sum of nearly Rs. 2.00 crore was disbursed. (vii) Double-shift operation of the Container Charge collection counters was introduced w.e.f. 9.9.96 without any additional man-power. This entails savings in overtime, amounting to about Rs. 4.00 lakhs per annum. (viii) Not a single man-day lost due to any industrial dispute/strike during 1995-96". According to the respondent no. 7 that the above measures so taken, though extremely beneficial to the Board's finance, were strongly resented to by a cartel of vested interests who were beneficiaries of the earlier system. There was severe backlash in the form of threat, intimidation and a spate of false, baseless and malicious allegations has been made against him. Worst of all he was falsely implicated in an alleged irregularity. The respondent no. 7 also in his affidavit-in-opposition had stated in detail as to the prevalent practice with regard to the signing of the log book which is to the following effect:- (m) For providing mobility to Board Officials, transport both departmental and hired from outside contractors are allotted to various offices of the Board including the office of the Dy. 7 also in his affidavit-in-opposition had stated in detail as to the prevalent practice with regard to the signing of the log book which is to the following effect:- (m) For providing mobility to Board Officials, transport both departmental and hired from outside contractors are allotted to various offices of the Board including the office of the Dy. Chairman, CDLB, Transport attached to a particular office of the Board is used not only by the said office but by other office of the Board, as may be required from time to time. There is no exception in respect of the transport attached to the Dy. Chairman's office. Utilisation of a transport attached to a office of the Board is certified in the related log book by the head of the concerned office. Subsequently sanction of the Dy. Chairman in writing is obtained before effecting payment. In case of the transport attached to the Dy. Chairman's office the log book is similarly signed by the Dy. Chairman, even if the transport was used by other officials of the Board as might be necessary Dy. Chairman's such signature in the log book not only certify utilisation of the vehicles by himself as well as other officials of the Board but is also meant to convey his sanction thereto for effecting payment. In other words, in the absence of the signature of Dy. Chairman, no payment could be effected. Be it mentioned here that a sum of Rs. 2,490.50 p. was paid to the transport contractor for utilisation of the Transport attached to the Dy. Chairman's office during the period I was totally out of town in the year 1993-94. (n) Sri Sujit Bhowmik being the transport contractor failed to supply commercially registered vehicle according to the terms and conditions of the tender for a long time and I detected the same. Immediately after such detection, I instituted an enquiry through the Secretary who is also the vigilance officer of the CDLB and in course of enquiry the said Sri Bhowmik confessed his guilt. He recovered a sum of Rs. 5754.13p. from the said transport contractor as and by way of penalty for non-supply of commercially registered vehicle and also blacklisted him in August, 1995 for a period of three years for incorporating false registration number in the log book and related bills. He recovered a sum of Rs. 5754.13p. from the said transport contractor as and by way of penalty for non-supply of commercially registered vehicle and also blacklisted him in August, 1995 for a period of three years for incorporating false registration number in the log book and related bills. The said decision was communicated in the meeting of the Tender Committee held on 19.3.1996 when both the writ petitioners were also present in the said meeting. (o) As regards utilisation of official vehicles during the period, I was out of town on official tour, I say that on almost all the occasions I left Calcutta by evening flight after attending my office. The official transport was used for official work during the day and also for my travel to the airport in the evening. I returned by evening flight in most of the cases and official transport was used after official and authorised use during the day to pick me from the Airport in the evening. According to procedures as stated hereinbefore I used to sign the log book which certifies not only the utilisation of the car but also to sanction payment for such use. The transport has never been misused as alleged. Even on the day when I was out of station fully, the car was also used for official and authorised purposes and I signed the log book on my return as and when submitted to me by way of sanctioning such use which is required as per the long standing procedures. It is useful to note that the respondent no. 7 had also brought on records all the instances of the progress and improvements of CDLB during his tenure as Dy. Chairman which are stated as aforesaid. It appears that the allegations made in the letter of the respondent no. 7 addressed to the respondent no. 3 dated 27.6.96 prima facie are correct. The same, vis-a-vis the statement noted therein at least, gives rise to an indication as to what prompted the petitioners to file the present writ application. Chairman which are stated as aforesaid. It appears that the allegations made in the letter of the respondent no. 7 addressed to the respondent no. 3 dated 27.6.96 prima facie are correct. The same, vis-a-vis the statement noted therein at least, gives rise to an indication as to what prompted the petitioners to file the present writ application. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the court will not normally interfere in a matter in the name of Public Interest Litigation where it is found that it is not in the interest of the public in general but is in fact a private dispute inspired by a rivalry or for a reason contrary to the spirit of the Public Interest Litigation. The instant case appears to be one of such cases where a storm has been sought to be made out of a tea cup. The alleged irregularity, if any, is trivial in nature and in any event the same was capable of being explained away in a Board meeting of respondent no. 13 but despite thereof the same has been made the subject matter of a litigation for which this court had to spend a few valuable hours of its judicial time. The Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India normally would not ask the Central Bureau of Investigation to hold an inquiry or to register a regular criminal case only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The court can pass such an order where a mala fide motive or intention is shown by the authorities concerned which if allowed to stand, would result in loss of public confidence in the administration of justice. The question, therefore, which has to be posed in the case is as to whether the instant case is one which requires the intervention of the court and a direction should be issued upon the Central Bureau of Investigation to initiate a regular case and monitor the same as has been directed to be done in Vineet Narain (supra). The court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not issue an order only because it is lawful to do so. The court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not issue an order only because it is lawful to do so. Exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, Apart from the said fact, assuming that what has been stated by the petitioners in their writ application are correct, nobody prevented the petitioners from either bringing the matter to the notice of the Board or from filing a complaint case themselves. It is now well known that any person can set the criminal law in motion. It may be that keeping in view the gravity of the complaints initially made against the respondent no. 7 either the Central Government or the respondent no. 13 at one point of time thought it fit to get a preliminary inquiry made by the CBI but there was no bar for it to accept the report which has been made after a thorough inquiry into the matter. Even as regard that part of the alleged financial irregularity which has been found to be prima facie correct, the employer must be given a free hand to decide for itself as to whether a departmental proceeding should be initiated or not keeping in view the fact the prevalent practice as has been pointed out in the affidavit-in-opposition which goes to show that no financial irregularity has been committed by the said respondent. Furthermore, before the employer comes to a conclusion that prima facie one of its employees is guilty of misconduct, it is also entitled to take a decision as to whether such an alleged misconduct is a mala fide act on the part of the concerned employees. Keeping in view the fact that the transporter-in-question namely Subash Bhowmik himself has made a confession as regard the irregularities committed by him which led the Dock Labour Board to pass an order of blacklisting him for a period of 3 years by the respondent no. 7 would also be a relevant factor for the respondent no. 13 for not initiating a departmental proceedings or lodging the First Information Report against the Respondent no. 7. Suffice it to say that the prima facie satisfaction is that of the employer and not of the Court. 7 would also be a relevant factor for the respondent no. 13 for not initiating a departmental proceedings or lodging the First Information Report against the Respondent no. 7. Suffice it to say that the prima facie satisfaction is that of the employer and not of the Court. The Court can intervene in such a matter provided it arrives at a definite finding that the action on the part of the employer or a public authority is either mala fide or so suspicious that it requires a full-fledged investigation. It is not one of such cases as was in Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. (supra) where the allegation had been made as against the former Chief Minister of Sikkim. There a question arose as to whether section 21 of the General Clauses Act can have any application in relation to an order passed granting sanction for prosecution. The Apex Court on the facts of the case found that Union of India itself after due investigation of the cases found existence of a prima facie case for offences under section 5(1)(e) of Preventive and Corruption Act and offences under section 120B read with section 5(2) and section 5(1)(d) thereof. In that situation, the Apex Court held that the writ petition cannot be thrown out on the ground only because the respondent no. 4 happened to be the political rival by the petitioner before it. In Vineet Narain (supra), the Apex Court found as a fact that the accused persons being powerful persons, no action was being taken in the following words:- "Inertia was the common rule whenever the alleged offender was a powerful person. Thus, it became necessary to take measures to ensure permanency in the remedial effect to prevent reversion to inertia of the agencies in such matters." It is in that situation, the Apex Court made an observation which is as follows : "In view of the problem in the States being even more acute, as elaborately discussed in the Report of the National Police Commission (1979), there is urgent need for the State Governments also to set up credible mechanism for selection of the Police Chief in the States. The Central Government must pursue the matter with the State Governments and ensure that a similar mechanism, as indicated above, is set up in each State for the selection/appointment, tenure, transfer and posting of not merely the Chief of the State Police but also of all police officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above. It is shocking to hear, a matter of common knowledge, that in some States the tenure of a Superintendent of Police is on an average only a few months and transfers are made for whimsical reasons. Apart from demoralising the Police Force, it has also the adverse effect of politicising the personnel. It is, therefore, essential that prompt measures are taken by the Central Government within the ambit of their constitutional powers in the federation to impress upon the State Governments that such a practice is alien to the envisaged constitutional machinery. The situation described in the National Police Commissioner's Report (1979) was alarming and it has become much worse by now. The desperation of the Union Home Minister in his letters to the State Governments, placed before us at the hearing, reveal a distressing situation which must be cured, if the rule of law is to prevail. No action within the constitutional scheme found necessary to remedy the situation is too stringent in these circumstances. Upon a detailed consideration as regard the power of the Supreme Court under Articles 32 and 142 of the Constitution of India, it has clearly been held that the Supreme Court has such power in the following words : "In view of the common perception shared by everyone including the Government of India and the Independent Review Committee (IRC) of the need for insulation of the CBI from extraneous influence of any kind, it is imperative that some action is urgently taken to prevent the continuance of this situation with a view to ensure proper implementation of the rule of law. This is the need of equality guaranteed in the Constitution. The right to equality in a situation like this is that of the Indian Polity and not merely of a few individuals. The powers conferred on this Court by the Constitution are ample to remedy this defect and to ensure enforcement of the concept of equality. This is the need of equality guaranteed in the Constitution. The right to equality in a situation like this is that of the Indian Polity and not merely of a few individuals. The powers conferred on this Court by the Constitution are ample to remedy this defect and to ensure enforcement of the concept of equality. There are ample powers conferred by Article 32 read with Article 142 to make orders which have the effect of law by virtue of Article 141 and there is mandate to all authorities to act in aid of the orders of this Court as provided in Article 144 of the Constitution. In a catena of decisions of this court, this power has been recognised and exercised, if need be, by issuing necessary directions to file the vacuum till such time the legislature steps in to cover the gap or the executive discharges its role. It is in the discharge of this duty that the IRC was constituted by the Government of India with a view to obtain its recommendations after an in-depth study of the problem in order to implement them by suitable executive directions till proper legislation is enacted. The report of the IRC has been given to the Government of India but because of certain difficulties in the present context, no further action by the Executive has been possible. The study having been made by a Committee considered by the Government of India itself as an expert body, it is safe to act on the recommendations of the IRC to formulate the directions of this court, to the extent they are of assistance. In the remaining area, on the basis of the study of the IRC and its recommendations, suitable directions can be formulated to fill the entire vacuum. This is the exercise we propose to perform in the present case since this exercise can no longer be delayed. It is essential and indeed the constitutional obligation of this court under the aforesaid provisions to issue the necessary directions in this behalf. We now consider formulation of the needed directions in the performance of this obligation. The directions issued herein for strict compliance are to operate till such time as they are replaced by suitable legislation in this behalf. There is another aspect of rule of law which is of equal significance. We now consider formulation of the needed directions in the performance of this obligation. The directions issued herein for strict compliance are to operate till such time as they are replaced by suitable legislation in this behalf. There is another aspect of rule of law which is of equal significance. Unless a proper investigation is made and it is followed by an equally proper prosecution, the effort made would not bear fruition. The recent experience in the field of prosecution is also discouraging. To emphasise this point, some reference has to be made to a large number of prosecutions launched as a result of monitoring by the court in this matter which have resulted in discharge of the accused at the threshold. It took several years for the CBI to commence investigation and that too result of the monitoring by this court. It is not as if the CBI, on conclusion of the investigation, formed the opinion that no case was made out for prosecution so that the earlier inaction may have been justified. The CBI did file numerous charge-sheets which indicated that in its view a prima facie case for prosecution had been made out. This alone is sufficient to indicate that the earlier inaction was unjustified. However, discharge of the accused on filing of the charge-sheet indicates, irrespective of the ultimate outcome of the matters pending in the higher courts, that the trial court at least was not satisfied that a prima facie case was made out by the investigation. These facts are sufficient to indicate that either the investigation or the prosecution or both were lacking. A similar result of discharge of the accused in such a large number of cases where charge-sheets had been filed by the CBI is not consistent with any other inference. The need for a strong and competent prosecution machinery and not merely a fair and competent investigation by the CBI can hardly be over emphasised. This is the occasion for us to take the view that a suitable machinery for prosecution of the cases filed in court by the CBI is also essential to ensure discharge of its full responsibility by the CBI. Unless a competent prosecution follows a fair and competent investigation the exercise in the ultimate analysis would be futile. Investigation and prosecution are interrelated and improvement of investigation without improving the prosecution machinery is of no practical significance. Unless a competent prosecution follows a fair and competent investigation the exercise in the ultimate analysis would be futile. Investigation and prosecution are interrelated and improvement of investigation without improving the prosecution machinery is of no practical significance. We would, therefore, consider the aspect of prosecution also in the formulation of the guidelines. In exercise of the powers of this court under Article 32 read with Article 142, guidelines and direction have been issued in a large number of cases and a brief reference to a few of them is sufficient. In Erach Sam Kanga vs. Union of India the Constitution Bench laid down certain guidelines relating to the Emigration Act. In Lakshmi Kant Pandey vs. Union of India, (In re, Foreign Adoption), guidelines for adoption of minor children by foreigners were laid down. Similarly in State of W.B. vs. Sampat Lal, K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India, Union Carbide Corpn. vs. Union of India, Delhi Judicial Service Association vs. State of Gujarat (Nadiad case), Delhi Development Authority vs. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. vs. Union of India guidelines were laid down having the effect of law, requiring rigid compliance. In Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association vs. Union of India (IInd Judges case) a nine-judge Bench laid down guidelines and norms for the appointment and transfer of Judges which are being rigidly followed in the matter of appointments of High Court and Supreme Court Judges and transfer of High Court Judges. More recently in Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan Elaborate guidelines have been laid down for observance in workplaces relating to sexual harassment of working women. In Vishaka it was said : (SCC pp. 249-50, para 11). "II. The obligation of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of these fundamental rights in the absence of legislation must be viewed along with the role of judiciary envisaged in the Beijing Statement of Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary in the LAWASIA region. These principles were accepted by the Chief Justices of Asia and the Pacific at Beijing in 1995 (1) (As amended at Manila, 28th August, 1997) as those representing the minimum standards necessary to be observed in order to maintain the independence and effective functioning of the judiciary. The objectives of the judiciary mentioned in the Beijing Statement are : "Objectives of the judiciary : 10. The objectives of the judiciary mentioned in the Beijing Statement are : "Objectives of the judiciary : 10. The objectives and functions of the Judiciary include the following : (a) to ensure that all persons are able to live securely under the rule of law; (b) to promote, within the proper limits of the judicial function, the observance and the attainment of human rights; and (c) to administer the law impartially among persons and between persons and the State. Thus, an exercise of this kind by the court is now well-settled practice which has taken firm roots in our constitutional jurisprudence. This exercise is essential to file the void in the absence of suitable legislation to cover the field." It is not necessary in this case to consider as to whether this Court can also under Article 226 exercise such power, inasmuch as, in the opinion of this Court, it does not appear to be a fit case where this Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. Before parting with this case, it may be noted that although there exists a controversy as to whether the petitioners are responsible for misplacement of Annexures A1 and A2 to the writ application. It appears strange that the petitioners have verified the relevant statements made in the writ application as true to their knowledge. If the petitioners obtained information only on the basis of the xerox copies of the said documents, the relevant statements made in paragraph 15 should not have been verified as true to the deponent's knowledge. Surprisingly enough, the petitioners have also produced before this court a xerox copy of the relevant documents maintained in the office of the Central Bureau of Investigation which clearly shows that the petitioners have access to the confidential documents not only in the office of the respondent no. 13, but also of Central Bureau of Investigation. The writ petitioner themselves appear to be powerful and influential persons suspicion as rightly been pointed out by Mr. Sengupta, this suspicion arises that this application has not been filed bona fide. For the reasons aforementioned this application is dismissed but in the facts and circumstances there will be no order as to costs. It will however be open to the petitioner and/or any other person to take such action in the matter as is permissible in law. Sengupta, this suspicion arises that this application has not been filed bona fide. For the reasons aforementioned this application is dismissed but in the facts and circumstances there will be no order as to costs. It will however be open to the petitioner and/or any other person to take such action in the matter as is permissible in law. All parties are to act on a signed copy of the operative part of the Judgment on the usual undertaking. Application is dismissed.