A. K. PATNAIK, J. ( 1 ) :- The petitioner is a senior member of the Indian Administrative service (Orissa Cadre) and was posted as the Special Secretary to Chief Minister during 1999. He has filed this writ petition making some prayers in connection with o. J. C. Nos. 9456, 12461 and 13305 of 1999. Hence, this writ petition was taken up for admission along with the hearing of the pending matters relating to the said O. J. C. Nos. 9456, 12461 and 13305 of 1999. We have today delivered final orders in the said o. J. C. Nos. 9456, 12461 and 13305 of 1999. The facts stated in our orders delivered today in the said O. J. C. Nos. 9456, 12461 and 13305 of 1999 are reiterated hereunder. ( 2 ) DURING July, 1999 some local dailies reported about a sex racket in which a Physical Training Inspector of balasore was luring young girls on false pretence for high officials. A letter dated 29-7-1999 relating to the incident was received by the then acting Chief Justice of this Court from AB (name withheld) and the letter was registered as a writ petition bearing O. J. C. No. 9456 of 1999. In the said writ petition, the State of Orissa through the Secretary to Government of Orissa, Home Department and the orissa State Commission for Women were impleaded as opposite parties No. 1 and 2 respectively. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Orissa State Women Commission, but no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State of Orissa, Home Department. Thereafter the said writ petition was heard and by order dated 24-8-1999 the court closed the matter after considering the report of the Orissa State Women Commission. Thereafter, a fresh writ petition O. J. C. No. 12461 of 1999 was filed by one Dr. Suprava Kumari Das of Balasore, a social activist, for a direction to the concerned authorities to complete the investigation and submit a charge sheet against those involved in the incident. Thereafter, a fresh writ petition O. J. C. No. 12461 of 1999 was filed by one Dr. Suprava Kumari Das of Balasore, a social activist, for a direction to the concerned authorities to complete the investigation and submit a charge sheet against those involved in the incident. Yet, another writ petition o. J. C. No. 13305 of 1999 was filed by Sri prasanta Kumar Das praying for a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, "the CBI") to register a case and take up the investigation into the alleged Balasore sex scandal, In a common order dated 9-5-2000 passed in the aforesaid three petitions the Court held that in consideration of all the materials brought on record which were not earlier placed before the Court at the time of hearing of O. J. C. No. 9456 of 1999, closing of the matter and not ordering an inquiry into the Balasore sex scandal would not be in the public interest. In the said order dated 9-5-2000, the Court found that despite the statement made by the Chief minister on the floor of the Assembly that an F. I. R. shall be registered and despite a direction by the Home Secretary to that effect, an F. I. R. had not been registered and the inquiry report revealed that some high officials appeared to have been involved and accordingly directed that the matter be investigated by an independent agency, namely, the CBI. ( 3 ) PURSUANT to the said order dated 9-5-2000 of the Court, the CBI registered a case no. RC-3/s/2000-Cal and took up investigation of the case and submitted status reports from time to time. After the investigation was completed, the CBI filed a final status report (hereinafter referred to as "the first final status report") stating therein that charge sheet has already been filed in the court of the Additional C. J. M.-cum- Special C. J. M. , Bhubaneswar against three accused persons, Srimati Prabasini Kar, Sri susanta Kumar Mohapatra and Dr. Sidhartha Patra but no evidence directly linking Sri Prasanta Kumar Nayak or any other person to the offences under investigation has come on record and investigation has therefore been concluded. Sidhartha Patra but no evidence directly linking Sri Prasanta Kumar Nayak or any other person to the offences under investigation has come on record and investigation has therefore been concluded. On 7-3-2003, the Court passed orders recorded in the order sheet of O. J. C. No. 9456 of 1999 that the CBI can file the charge sheet before the appropriate Court and if any objection is to be taken, the same can be done before the concerned Court in terms of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 4 ) THE petitioner in O. J. C. No. 13305 of 1999 Sri Prasanta Kumar Das then filed misc. Case Nos. 689 and 690 of 2003. In misc. Case No. 689 of 2003, the said petitioner prayed for modification of the aforesaid order dated 7-3-2003 and in Misc. Case no. 690 of 2003, the said petitioner prayed for stay of operation of the said order dated 7-3-2003. The CBI filed its counter to the misc. cases and after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the CBI, the Court passed orders dated 25-4-2003 modifying the order dated 7-3-2003. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said order dated 25-4-2003 passed in Misc. Case Nos. 689 and 690 of 2003 are quoted hereinbelow: "8. In the face of the above materials, we have no hesitation to hold that the conclusion reached by the Investigating Agency that "no evidence directly linking NP or any other person with the offences under investigation has come on record" is faulty which necessitates further probe into the matter. In the circumstances, this Court has to monitor the further investigation. It is needless to point out that even after laying of the final report, power of police to conduct further investigation is recognized under section 173 (8) of the Cr. P. C. It is also not necessary to hear any person (accused) when direction to police to conduct further investigation of the case is made (See Shri Bhagwan samardha Sree Pada Vallabha venkata Vishwandadha Maharaj v. State of andhra Pradesh, AIR 1999 SC 2332 : (1999 cri LJ 3661 ). 9. For the reasons aforesaid, paragraph-2 of the order dated 7-3-2003 is hereby modified to the extent indicated in this order. By this direction, we may not be understood to have formed any opinion on the culpability of any person. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, paragraph-2 of the order dated 7-3-2003 is hereby modified to the extent indicated in this order. By this direction, we may not be understood to have formed any opinion on the culpability of any person. " the aforesaid order dated 25-4-2003 passed in Misc. Case Nos. 689 and 690 of 2003 was thereafter challenged before the supreme Court in SLP Nos. 10306 and 10307 of 2003 by the petitioner Prasant kumar Nayak who was referred to as "np" in the said order dated 25-4-2003. But by order dated 25-8-2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the said S. L. Ps. with the observation that the case was not a fit case for admission at that stage. Thereafter the CBI filed a final status report (hereinafter referred as "the second final status report")on 12-2-2004 stating that the evidence collected during further investigation is not sufficient to launch prosecution to establish complicity of the petitioner in the present case Prasant Kumar Nayak in the offence. In the second final status report, the CBI has further stated that the materials available point towards unbecoming conduct on the part of the petitioner Prasant kumar Nayak and has recommended for initiating regular departmental action against him for major penalty. ( 5 ) THE petitioner Prasant Kumar Nayak has challenged the said finding of the CBI in the second final status report that the materials available after investigation point towards unbecoming conduct on his part and the said recommendation in the second final status report for initiating regular departmental action against him for major penalty. He has prayed in this writ petition for quashing the said finding and recommendation against him by the cbi and for a direction to the CBI and the State Crimes Department to enquire into the frivolous litigations - O. J. C. Nos. 9456, 12461 and 13305 of 1999 and the miscellaneous applications filed therein for the purpose of finding out as to whether a private malice is behind the so-called Public Interest Litigations. ( 6 ) WHEN the matter was taken up for admission, Mr. 9456, 12461 and 13305 of 1999 and the miscellaneous applications filed therein for the purpose of finding out as to whether a private malice is behind the so-called Public Interest Litigations. ( 6 ) WHEN the matter was taken up for admission, Mr. Bijan Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the CBI has filed the second final status report with a finding that the materials available after investigation point towards unbecoming conduct on the part of the petitioner Prasant kumar Nayak and has recommended for initiating regular departmental action against him for major penalty pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in O. J. C. Nos. 9456, 12461 and 13305 of 1999, but in none of the said three cases the petitioner was made a party. He argued that the said finding and recommendation of the CBI in the second final status report are therefore liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice. Mr. Ray next submitted that in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahma Datt Sharma, MR 1987 SC 943, the supreme Court has held that the proceedings in a writ petition stand terminated by final disposal of the writ petition and it is not open to the Court to re-open the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application in respect of the matter which provided a fresh cause of action and if this principle is not followed, there would be confusion and chaos and the finality of proceedings would cease to have any meaning. He further submitted that O. J. C. No. 13305 of 1999 filed by Sri Prasanta Kumar Das is not really a PIL filed by Sri Prasanta Kumar Das but a litigation being pursued by some private persons in the name of Sri Prasanta kumar Das out of malice against the petitioner Prasant Kumar Nayak. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India, 2004 AIR SCW 1494 : ( AIR 2004 SC 1923 ) in which the Supreme court has cautioned that Public Interest litigation has to be used with great care and caution and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice is not lurking. Mr. Mr. Ray also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117 : (1968 cri LJ 97), for the proposition that it is for the police to form a final opinion on the materials collected during investigation whether or not charge sheet will be filed against an accused person and the Court cannot encroach into this power of the police. He submitted that since the CBI in the present case has taken a view in the first final status report and the second final status report that there are no sufficient materials to show complicity of the petitioner Sri nayak in the offence, no directions can be given to the CBI by any Court to file a charge sheet against him for the offences alleged. He finally submitted that under Article 21 of the Constitution no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law and in Kartar Singh v. State of punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569 : (1994 Cri LJ 3139), the Supreme Court has held that each expression used in Article 21 of the Constitution enhances human dignity and value. He submitted that the right of the present petitioner to live with human dignity and value has been seriously affected by the proceedings in O. J. C. Nos. 9456, 12461 and 13305 of 1999 in this Court. ( 7 ) THE proceedings in O. J. C. Nos. 9456, 12461 and 13305 of 1999 were initiated in this Court as local dailies reported in July, 1999 about a sex racket in which a Physical training Instructor of Balasore was luring young girls on false pretence for high officials and investigation by the CBI into the said sex racket was ordered by the Court after considering the matter at length and on completion of investigation and further investigation the CBI filed the first final status report stating that charge sheet has been filed in the Court of the Additional c. J. M-cum-Special C. J. M. , Bhubaneswar against three accused persons namely srimati Prabasinl Kar, Sri Susanta Kumar mohapatra and Dr. Sidhartha Patra, but no evidence directly linking Prasant Kumar nayak or any other person with the offences under investigation has come on record and the investigation has therefore been concluded. But by order dated 25-4-2003 passed in Misc. Case Nos. Sidhartha Patra, but no evidence directly linking Prasant Kumar nayak or any other person with the offences under investigation has come on record and the investigation has therefore been concluded. But by order dated 25-4-2003 passed in Misc. Case Nos. 689 and 690 of 2003 the Court did not accept the said conclusion and observed that the Court has to monitor the further investigation. Against the said order dated 25-4-2003 passed in misc. Case Nos. 689 and 690 of 2003, the petitioner Prasant Kumar Nayak filed S. L. Ps. bearing Nos. 10306 and 10307 of 2003, but by order dated 25-8-2003 the Supreme court dismissed the said S. L. Ps. with the observation that the case was not a fit case for interference at that stage. Considering the aforesaid facts, we are not inclined to give any direction to the CBI and the State crimes Department to enquire and submit a report whether O. J. C. Nos. 9456, 12461 and 13305 of 1999 and the miscellaneous applications filed therein are actually filed on account of private malice and are not really public interest litigations. ( 8 ) FROM the time the Court entertained o. J. C. Nos. 9456, 12461 and 13305 of 1999 till the second final status report was filed by the CBI, there was no finding or recommendation against the petitioner Prasant kumar Nayak by which he was in any way affected. In the second final status report the CBI stated that the evidence collected during the further investigation is not sufficient to launch prosecution to establish complicity of the present petitioner in the offence. After referring to the decision of the supreme Court in Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra (supra), cited by Mr. Bijan ray, we have already held in our orders delivered today in O. J. C. Nos. After referring to the decision of the supreme Court in Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra (supra), cited by Mr. Bijan ray, we have already held in our orders delivered today in O. J. C. Nos. 9456, 12461 and 13305 of 1999 that it is for the CBI as the investigating agency to form an opinion on the basis of the materials collected by it during investigation whether or not there were sufficient materials to prosecute the petitioner Prasant Kumar Nayak and this court while monitoring the investigation of the case by the CBI under Article 226 of the constitution cannot express an opinion that the materials collected by the CBI in course of investigation disclose commission, by Sri prasant Kumar Nayak, of the offence of conspiracy for committing rape on Harapriya barik and cannot direct the CBI to file a charge sheet against the petitioner Prasant kumar Nayak. But we have also held that the Magistrate and the Court in exercise of their discretion under Sections 190 (1) and 319 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may take action against the present petitioner under the said provisions of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 if he finds from the materials collected during investigation or evidence received during trial that any offence has been committed by the petitioner. Till such action is taken by the magistrate or the Courts under Section 190 (1) or Section 319 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner Prasant kurnar Nayak is not affected and the question of violation of principles of natural justice does not arise. ( 9 ) IN the second final status report, the cbi has however observed that the materials available after investigation point towards unbecoming conduct on the part of the petitioner Prasant Kumar Nayak and the cbi has recommended for initiation of regular departmental action against him for majority penalty. In case departmental action for major penalty is initiated against the petitioner Prasant Kumar Nayak by the disciplinary authority, he will obviously be afforded reasonable opportunity of defending himself against the charges and therefore, at this stage, he cannot complain of violation of principles of natural justice. ( 10 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to admit this writ petition and we accordingly dismiss the same. Petition dismissed. .