This writ petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India by the petitioner Shyam Bihari Pasi and the affidavit in sup port of the petition has been sworn by Sahab Dayal, aged about 35 years, said to be son of the petitioner Shyam Bihari Pasi which contains the prayer that the respon dents be directed to produce Shyam Bihari Pasi in person who is in detention and other directions may be issued as may be found fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2. Shri Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at some length. In opposition, Shri B. D. Pandey, learned A. G. A. has also been heard. 3. When this writ petition was filed it was felt that serious allegations have been made in this writ petition, therefore, five days time was allowed to the respondents to produce the petitioner in Co vrt on 11-2-99 and accordingly the writ petition was directed to be listed on 11-2-99. 4. In the meantime, counter affidavit has been filed by Shri Rudra Narain Dwivedi, Station Officer, Ghoorpur. Dis-trict Allahabad. Rejoinder affidavit, has also been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. When the matter was heard the attention of the Court was drawn to the fact that Station Officer, Ghoorpur along with police force entered the house of petitioner and have taken away the petitioner in a jeep from his house on 31-1-99 at 1. 30 p. m. This incident was wit nessed by several persons of locality in cluding Pappu. This witnesses Pappu is said to be aged about 30 years son of Bunsi Pasi. He was allegedly the man produced by the Government Advocate. However, the Court does not want to know whether the person produced in Court is Pappu or not. Suffice it to say that Shri B. D. Pandey, learned A. G. A. filed an affidavit of Pappu through Shri Rudra Narain Dwivedi, Sta tion Officer alleging that it is wrong to say that the witness saw the petitioner Shyam Bihari Pasi being taken away from his house by the police of the Police Station, Ghoorpur. Shri Raj Kumar, learned coun sel for the petitioner, filed yet another affidavit purporting to be of the same Pappu in which he has alleged that the Police of Ghoorpur has taken forcibly sig nature and LTI mark on blank paper. 5. Shri Raj Kumar, learned coun sel for the petitioner, filed yet another affidavit purporting to be of the same Pappu in which he has alleged that the Police of Ghoorpur has taken forcibly sig nature and LTI mark on blank paper. 5. In the writ petition copy of the two telegrams have been appended which al legedly were sent soon after taking away of the petitioner Shyam Bihari Pasi by the said police personnel. 6. Under the circumstances it ap pears necessary that an enquiry be got done as to the allegations made in the writ petition and the type of denial which has been put through counter affidavit of Rudra Narain Dwivedi. 7. The Incharge District Judge, Al lahabad is hereby directed to make neces sary enquiry himself or through the officer next to him in seniority get the matter enquired and submit a report within one fortnight from today. 8. Shri B. D. Pandey, learned A. G. A. will ensure that a letter goes to S. S. P. Al lahabad and the District Magistrate, Al lahabad who will extend full support to the Incharge District Judge or the officer nominated by him in facilitating the en quiry directed above, If necessary, police force shall be made available to the En quiry Judge. The record of the Police Sta tion as and when demanded shall be made available to the Enquiry Judge for with List this case alongwith the report ot Enquiry Judge on 15-3-99. 9. In the meantime if whereabouts of the petitioner is traced by the police, it may inform the Court as soon as information is received so that the enquiry may not be continued any more. 10 Shri B. D. Pandey, learned A. G. A. will ensure strict compliance of this order. 11. Let a certified copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within 24 hours. Ordered accordingly. .