JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition in person for an appropriate writ, order or direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to carry out investigations into the affairs of the Old Age Homes run by the Government of Delhi and initiate action against the guilty employees and officials. He has also prayed for an appropriate order restraining the Respondents or their agents from interfering with his possession or stay in the Old Age Home in Kalkaji, "B" Block, New Delhi. The final prayer of the Petitioner is for a direction to Respondent No. 1 to provide him security at the cost of the Government. 2. It appears that during the course of proceedings, Amicus Curiae were appointed from time to time to assist the Petitioner. Before us, the Petitioner was represented by a learned Counsel from the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. We are mentioning this to bring on record the fact that it is not as if the Petitioner has gone unrepresented. .3. On 15th July, 2003 it was submitted by learned Counsel for the Respondents that there is no vacancy in the Old Age Home in Kalkaji and that the Petitioner (who was apparently not staying there at that time) could be accommodated in the Old Age Home, Narela. It was also stated that as and when a vacancy arises in the Old Age Home in Kalkaji, the Petitioner would be accommodated. The Petitioner was not agreeable to go to the Old Age Home in Narela and, therefore, the writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court. 4. It appears that the Petitioner did get accommodation in the Old Age Home in Kalkaji on or about 30th June, 2005. While he was there, the Petitioner appears to have made some complaints with regard to the functioning of the Old Age Home and according to him, as a result of these complaints he was sought to be transferred out of the Old Age Home in Kalkaji. Consequently, the Petitioner moved an interim application in the disposed of writ petition and that is how the writ petition more or less got revived. 5. Consequently, the Petitioner moved an interim application in the disposed of writ petition and that is how the writ petition more or less got revived. 5. Notwithstanding an interim order staying his transfer, it appears from the order dated 10th October, 2006 that the Petitioner started living in the Arya Samaj Mandir or in a Gurudwara and other similar places meaning thereby that the Petitioner was no more staying in the Old Age Home in Kalkaji. On 10th October, 2006, the Petitioner sought "permission" of the Court to rejoin the Old Age Home in Kalkaji. The request made by the Petitioner was acceded to by the Court and he was allowed to rejoin the Old Age Home in Kalkaji on 13th October, 2006. 6. It appears from the order dated 18th December, 2006 that the Petitioner did not approach the Old Age Home in Kalkaji for admission. 7. When the matter was again taken up some time in February, 2009 it was apparently felt that it may be appropriate to ascertain the living conditions in the Old Age Home in Kalkaji. Accordingly, learned Counsel for the Respondents offered to visit some Old Age Homes in Delhi and on 3rd March, 2009 he informed the Court that the conditions at the Old Age Home in Kalkaji was quite satisfactory except for a few minor changes that needed to be made. 8. On that date, even though the Petitioner was represented by a learned Counsel appointed by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, he wished to make some submissions and he was permitted to do so. The Petitioner made certain allegations against one Umesh Mathur said to be a resident of the Old Age Home in Kalkaji. Accordingly, the Court was of the opinion that it may be appropriate if both learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the Respondents visit the Old Age Home in Kalkaji and look into the allegations made by the Petitioner against Umesh Mathur or any other allegation of malpractice of collecting money etc. in the Old Age Home. 9. Both learned Counsel visited the Old Age Home in Kalkaji and filed reports which suggest that some improvements need to be made in the Old Age Home in Kalkaji. in the Old Age Home. 9. Both learned Counsel visited the Old Age Home in Kalkaji and filed reports which suggest that some improvements need to be made in the Old Age Home in Kalkaji. But that apart, it was noted that there was no person by the name of Umesh Mathur living in the Old Age Home although there was one person by the name of Mahesh Mathur. As per the reports, the allegations made by the Petitioner against Umesh Mathur/Mahesh Mathur were not substantiated. One of the residents did mention that money was required to be paid for admission to the Old Age Home but this was denied by the other residents. 10. On the other hand, it was mentioned in the report given by learned Counsel for the Respondents that according to the residents of the Old Age Home, the Petitioner was a quarrelsome person with a bad temper and aggressive nature and that he used to threaten the residents. It is not necessary for us to go into this allegation. 11. On a request made by him, the Petitioner was granted permission to file his comments on the reports. We have gone through the views expressed by the Petitioner during the course of oral submissions and have also browsed through the huge bunch of documents filed by the Petitioner. No specific comment has been made by the Petitioner in respect of the two reports placed before us by learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as by learned Counsel for the Respondents. 12. Having considered the contents of the reports, we are of the view that there does not seem to be any substance in the allegations of the Petitioner that Umesh Mathur/Mahesh Mathur is creating any problem in the Old Age Home in Kalkaji. There also does not appear to be any issue with regard to any alleged malpractice in the Old Age Home in Kalkaji. As noted above, there is an allegation made by one person that money is required to be paid for getting admission in the Old Age Home in Kalkaji but that allegation was not supported by the other residents. 13. As noted above, there is an allegation made by one person that money is required to be paid for getting admission in the Old Age Home in Kalkaji but that allegation was not supported by the other residents. 13. On these facts, we are of the view that there is nothing on record to warrant any enquiry by the CBI to investigate into the affairs of Old Age Homes run by the Government of Delhi or to initiate any action against the so-called guilty employees and officials as prayed for by the Petitioner. No specific or substantiated allegation has been made. Since the Petitioner is not presently staying in the Old Age Home in Kalkaji, the second prayer made by him for a restraint order with regard to his possession does not survive. We also find no reason why the Petitioner should be provided with security at the cost of the Government. 14. We are not aware how the Petitioner is managing his affairs but we wish to make it clear that if there is a vacancy available in any of the Old Age Homes in Delhi and if the Petitioner applies for admission to any of these Homes, the concerned authorities in the Old Age Home will consider the case of the Petitioner sympathetically. .15. The reports that have been placed before us by learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as by learned Counsel for the Respondents show that some improvements are required to be made in the Old Age Homes run by the Government of Delhi. We would, therefore, request the Secretary in the Department of Social Welfare to constitute a committee to visit all the Old Age Homes in Delhi and suggest ways and means of improving the living conditions of the residents and also the feasibility of expanding its activities to take care of other aged persons who may be homeless. We request the Secretary to constitute a committee within a period of four weeks from today. Naturally, we expect the Department of Social Welfare to take remedial steps in the best interest of senior citizens, as soon as the report of the committee is submitted to it. 16. We record our appreciation for the assistance given to us by Mr. K. Venkatraman, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee and Mr. 16. We record our appreciation for the assistance given to us by Mr. K. Venkatraman, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee and Mr. Sunil Bagai, learned Counsel for the Respondents both of whom looked at the issues raised in the writ petition in a very positive and constructive manner. We direct the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee to pay to Mr. K. Venkatraman an amount of Rs. 10,000/- for the services rendered by him in connection with this case. 17. No further orders are required to be passed in the writ petition which is, accordingly, disposed of.