JUDGMENT A.M. Khanwilkar, J. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This is second Public Interest Litigation filed with regard to the same subject matter, through the same Advocate but, by another so called non-government organisation. The First Writ Petition was filed by Press Group of Maharashtra being Criminal Writ Petition No. 1693 of 2009 for more or less similar reliefs. The reliefs claimed in that Writ Petition read thus:- “(a) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ and/or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to conduct thorough investigation in all complaints filed against Sudhakar Pujari and such investigation agency may be directed to submit their report within such reasonable time as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to this Hon'ble Court and such investigation be monitored by this Hon'ble Court so as to ensure effective and objective investigation in the matter; (b) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and 11 to ensure forthwith seizure of all the necessary and requisite documentary evidence which are susceptible of being tampered with by Sudhakar Pujari; (c) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 11 to take such disciplinary action on the administrative side against Sudhakar Pujari for his having indulged in illegal and nefarious activities and to take all such actions which may be necessary so as to ensure that in the process of investigation and/or enquiry, he does not directly or indirectly trigger pressure/influence, either on the investigating agency/officers and/or those involved in conducting enquiry against him on the administrative side; (d) that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation and/or any other investigating agency as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to conduct thorough investigation in the complaints filed by Dr. B.S.Kadam and others against Sudhakar Pujari and to take all such action, including that of arrest/detention, seizure of bank Accounts, seizure of documents, bank lockers, and so also conducting deep probe into the assets movable and/or immovable of Sudhakar Pujari, and to submit their report to this Hon'ble Court and upon perusal of such report this Hon'ble Court may take such action and/or issue such direction as may be deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case; (e) that this Hon'ble Court may pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 to place Sudhakar Pujari who has been recently reinstated as police inspector at Vile Parle Police Station, Mumbai under suspension during the investigation/9 departmental inquiries being conducted against him; (f) any other further order and/or direction be given as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.” 3. The above said Writ Petition was disposed of on 3rd December, 2009 by this Court. The order reads thus:- “P.C. Learned APP appearing for the State submits that they have already served a charge sheet upon Respondent No. 20, who is expected to file reply to the chargesheet within 15 days and they will try their best to conclude departmental inquiry expeditiously provided the said respondent cooperates. 2. We have no reason, at this stage, to say that the said Respondent No. 20 will not cooperate in the matter, because department itself has served the chargesheet upon him after a considerable delay. Be that as it may, we do not see any reason to discuss the merits or otherwise of any contentions raised before us in the present Writ Petition. The State shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.” 4. The present Petition has been filed on the assertion that the Petitioner, in the former Petition (PIL), did not pursue the matter further. This assertion is found in Paragraph 48 of the Petition. 5. The circumstances giving rise to filing of these Petitions are in the wake of investigation of the Scam, which is popularly known as MPSC Examination Scam occurred in 1999, being ACB Crime No. 33 of 2002. In relation to that scam, two practicing Advocates filed Writ Petition No. 482 of 2003, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 5th July, 2006. In relation to that scam, two practicing Advocates filed Writ Petition No. 482 of 2003, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 5th July, 2006. The said order reads thus:- “P.C. This writ petition is at the instance of two practicing advocates who had occasion to appear in MPSC examinations held in the year 1999. Based on the newspaper reports, the petitioners allege that they came to know of the malpractices in the examinations conducted by the MPSC. They also came to know that on 20th June, 2002, ACB crime No.33/2002 was registered and respondent No.6 (Mr. S.B. Pujari) was appointed to investigate into the crime. During the course of investigation, Mr. S.B. Pujari, the petitioners aver, had collected material and was in process of arresting Smt. Sayalee Joshi and others and at that time he was transferred on 31st January, 2003. The petitioners allege that the respondent No.6 was transferred to scuttle the investigation. Accordingly, the present writ petition was filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation praying therein that the writ of mandamus be issued and the investigation made by respondent No.6 be ordered to be kept in safe custody with the Special Court (Anti Corruption Court) in the Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court and the order transferring respondent No.6 be quashed. 2. That on 25th February, 2003, the transfer order of respondent No.6 was cancelled by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Maharashtra State keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court in SLP (Criminal) No.5611 of 2002 is not in dispute. 3. The respondent No.6 proceeded with the investigation in ACB crime No.33/2002. By the order of this court on 22nd April, 2003, Mr. Anil P. Dhere, the then Joint Commissioner of Police was asked to supervise the investigation in crime No.33/2002 while the respondent No.6 continued to be the Investigating Officer. 4. The respondent No.6 carried out the investigation and admittedly, in addition to the main chargesheet that was filed on 25th September, 2002, nine supplementary chargesheets have been filed by him from time to time and 29 accused persons were arrested. The progress in investigation in ACB crime No.33/2002, was submitted to this court from time to time. 5. 4. The respondent No.6 carried out the investigation and admittedly, in addition to the main chargesheet that was filed on 25th September, 2002, nine supplementary chargesheets have been filed by him from time to time and 29 accused persons were arrested. The progress in investigation in ACB crime No.33/2002, was submitted to this court from time to time. 5. An affidavit has been filed by Shri Jeevan D. Virkar, Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Maharashtra on 12th May, 2006 before this court indicating therein that the investigation of ACB Crime No.33/2002 investigated by the respondent No.6 has come to an end with the last supplementary chargesheet filed in the trial court on 31st March, 2006. 6. The respondent No.6 has filed his affidavit and has stated that investigation in ACB Crime No.33/2002 is not yet complete and that few more persons involved in the crime are yet to be arrested. 7. It may be noticed here that the respondent No.6 has now been transferred vide general transfer order dated 6th May, 2006. 8. On 8th June, 2006 when the matter came before the Bench, the order was passed that an affidavit of Mr. Anil P. Dhere who was asked to supervise the investigation is necessary to find out whether the investigation in Crime No.33/2002 is complete or not. Mr. Anil P. Dhere presently posted as Commissioner of Police, SID has, accordingly, filed his affidavit today (5th July, 2006). He has stated in his affidavit that the investigation in Crime No.33/2002 is complete. 9. Mr. S.B. Pujari-respondent No.6 requested that time may be given to him to respond to the affidavit of Mr. Anil P. Dhere as according to him, the affidavit of Mr.Anil P. Dhere needs a response from him lest it must be used by the accused persons to their advantage and may also prejudice the prosecution. 10. We considered the request of Mr. S.B. Pujari. In our view, it is not necessary to grant time to the respondent No.6 to respond to the affidavit of Mr. Anil P. Dhere. The apprehension of Mr. S.B. Pujari that if the affidavit of Mr. Anil P. Dhere remains untraversed and uncontraverted, the accused persons may get benefit of the said affidavit shall be taken care of by the clarification that we shall make in the order. 11. Anil P. Dhere. The apprehension of Mr. S.B. Pujari that if the affidavit of Mr. Anil P. Dhere remains untraversed and uncontraverted, the accused persons may get benefit of the said affidavit shall be taken care of by the clarification that we shall make in the order. 11. Having considered the entire material before us, we are of the considered view that matter does not require any further monitoring by this court. With the filing of main chargesheet and nine supplementary chargesheets, the matter has run its course in so far as this court is concerned. 12. If at any stage, the Special Court is of the view that further investigation in ACB Crime No.33/2002 is necessary, the appropriate direction may be issued by the said court. Moreover, even after the conclusion of the investigation, if the present investigating officer collects further evidence against the accused persons or any other person/s, the investigating officer can always submit further report or reports regarding such evidence and person/s before the trial court. 12. The advocate for the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) submitted that criminal writ petition has been filed by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission before this court praying therein that ACB Crime No.7/2006 be quashed and that further investigation be continued in ACB Crime No.33/2002. He, accordingly, submitted that this writ petition needs to be kept pending. We are not persuaded by the submission of the counsel for the MPSC. The writ petition filed by the MPSC shall be considered on its own merits uninfluenced by the order passed in the present writ petition. 13. We may observe that the different perception of investigation amongst Mr. Anil P. Dhere who was asked by this court to supervise the investigation and Mr. S.B. Pujari (Respondent No.6), Investigating Officer resulted in giving unnecessary tool in the hands of the accused persons in making reports against the investigating officer. Had Mr. Anil P. Dhere and Mr. S.B. Pujari worked in tandem, the investigation could have been concluded long back. 14. Be that as it may, the writ petition has been taken to the logical conclusion by filing of the chargesheet and nine supplementary chargesheets against 29 accused persons and no further monitoring is necessary by this court. 15. We clarify that the affidavit of Mr. S.B. Pujari worked in tandem, the investigation could have been concluded long back. 14. Be that as it may, the writ petition has been taken to the logical conclusion by filing of the chargesheet and nine supplementary chargesheets against 29 accused persons and no further monitoring is necessary by this court. 15. We clarify that the affidavit of Mr. Anil P. Dhere is for the purposes of this PIL and shall not be used in any proceeding for any purpose whatsoever. We also record the statement of the Advocate General that the affidavit of Mr. Anil P. Dhere does not contain any allegations against Mr. S.B. Pujari. 16. The respondent No.6-Mr.S.B.Pujari put in more than three years in investigating ACB Crime No.33/2002 and we expect the State Government to be objective and ensure that he is not unnecessarily harassed in respect of the investigation conducted by him in ACB Crime No.33/2002. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.” 6. The allegation, against Respondent No. 7, is about explicit material in the official record to suggest that Respondent No. 7, besides his acts of commission and omission of insubordination, has nexus with the underworld and indulged in rampant corruption. Such noting is found in the communication of high ranking police officials of the State, such as Shri. J. D. Virkar, the then Director General, ACB, dated 15th December, 2005 and 14th April, 2006, Exhibit 'L' (page 275 to 275H) and Exhibit – 'M' (page 276 to 276F) respectively. The said official had gone to the extent of directing initiation of action against Respondent No. 7 under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Nevertheless, no action was being been taken against Respondent No. 7, as he wielded political influence. 7. Be that as it may, it is a matter of record that the issue adverted to in the communication of high ranking official has been inquired into at the appropriate level. As in the previous Petition, even in the present Petition, the Court had made it clear that the issues raised in connection with taking departmental action, this Court will not examine the service matter in a Public Interest Litigation. For that purpose, we may now straight away advert to the reliefs as claimed in this Petition; and consider whether such reliefs can be entertained in a Public Interest Litigation. 8. The first relief is to direct Respondent Nos. For that purpose, we may now straight away advert to the reliefs as claimed in this Petition; and consider whether such reliefs can be entertained in a Public Interest Litigation. 8. The first relief is to direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to appoint officer not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police to investigate the 12 FIRs being Nos. 16/2006 to 21/2006 registered against Respondent No. 7 in Borivali Police Station and FIR Nos. 6/2006 to 9/2006 registered with Colaba Police Station, Mumbai and submit report to the Court, within reasonable time. As regards this relief, it is noticed that after completion of the investigation, of those cases, 'C' Summary report came to be filed by the Investigating Officer and the same has been accepted by the concerned Criminal Court. As the decision of the Criminal Court, accepting the 'C' Summary report has been allowed to attain finality, the question of entertaining prayer clause (a) does not arise and thus the direction as sought cannot be issued in the fact situation of the present case. 9. The second relief claimed is to direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to accord sanction under Section 23(2) of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the MCOCA”) and under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for prosecution of Respondent No. 7, in connection with offence punishable under the provisions of the MCOCA. It is noticed that the Special Court, dealing with the private complaint filed by one Avinash Tukaram Sanas, one of the accused in the said MPSC Examination Scam, has already dismissed the said private complaint vide order dated 6th November, 2004, which order of the Special Court has been confirmed by us today, by a separate order passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 974 of 2005, filed by the original complainant. The Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, in his report/order dated 28th October, 2004 has recorded his subjective satisfaction that no prima facie case was made out from the material placed before him to indicate the involvement of Respondent No. 7 in the commission of alleged offence, under the provisions of the MCOCA. In that view of the matter, the Special Court concluded that the private complaint cannot be proceeded further against Respondent No. 7, in respect of the said offence, for want of sanction. In that view of the matter, the Special Court concluded that the private complaint cannot be proceeded further against Respondent No. 7, in respect of the said offence, for want of sanction. In any case, that order cannot be permitted to be challenged by way of Public Interest Litigation. The subtle attempt of the Petitioner is to keep the accusation made against Respondent No. 7 pending for reasons best known to them. That would inevitably help the accused named in the MPSC Examination Scam. Any observation made with regard to the factual matrix referred to in the present Petition would inevitably help the accused persons named in the said offence. We are more than convinced that the present Petition is a subterfuge and an attempt to create gloss in the guise of Public Interest Litigation by using the screen of so called non-government organisations. It is intriguing as to how these non-government organisations got access to voluminous official documents filed along with the successive Public Interest Litigation, running into around 500 pages and incidentally, filing the Petitions through the same Advocate. We are inclined to accept the argument of the State that the banner of non-government organisations is being used to invite finding of this Court which may be useful for the defence of the accused persons in the said MPSC Examination Scam case, which is pending trial, by attacking the integrity of the Respondent No. 7 who was the Investigating Officer of that case and was ordered to conduct the investigation under the supervision of the Court. It is a matter of record that even the Apex Court expressed displeasure for unilaterally disrobing Respondent No. 7 from the charge of Investigating Officer of the said case and the Department was compelled to allow the Respondent No. 7 to take the said investigation to its logical conclusion by filing of nine charge sheets by him in that case. As aforesaid, the order passed by the Special Court, rejecting the private complaint of Avinash Sanas and that order having been upheld by us today, in a separate Judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 974 of 2005, relief in prayer clause (b) will have to be stated to be rejected, even on that count. 10. As regards prayer clause (c), for direction to Respondent Nos. 10. As regards prayer clause (c), for direction to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to implement the recommendations of Shri. J. D. Virkar, the then Director General of Police (ACB) dated 15th December, 2005 and 15th April, 2006 for initiating action against Respondent No. 7, the argument proceeds that no action has been taken in respect of the said recommendations. This essentially is a service matter, in respect of which Public Interest Litigation should be eschewed. At the same time, it has come on record that inquiry in respect of the circumstances referred to in the said communications of Shri. J. D. Virkar, including about the issue of connection of Respondent No. 7 with the underworld has been inquired into at the departmental level and it was decided that no action was necessary against Respondent No. 7. However, the departmental proceedings have since been revived in the wake of opinion expressed by the Police Commissioner in his office order dated 16th September, 2010, copy whereof was produced before us, directing de-novo inquiry. In that case, the prayer under consideration is worked out. In the said inquiry, we have no manner of doubt that all aspects will be considered in accordance with law. Accordingly, we decline to entertain even prayer clause (c), in the fact situation of the present case, assuming that such prayer could be entertained in a Public Interest Litigation. 11. As regards prayer clause (d), the direction sought against Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 is to file charge sheet to add nexus of Respondent No. 7 with criminal underworld syndicates, as is revealed from the tape recorded conversion with underworld leader, which is available with Crime Branch, Mumbai. As mentioned earlier, if the de-novo inquiry is in progress, the question of examining the issue raised by the Petitioner, much less by way of Public Interest Litigation is unwarranted. We, however, place on record the stand taken by the Department that tape recorded conversation is not existing and available, as is evident from the statement of the concerned witnesses, who were examined even by the Special Court. 12. The next relief claimed by the Petitioner is to direct Respondent Nos. We, however, place on record the stand taken by the Department that tape recorded conversation is not existing and available, as is evident from the statement of the concerned witnesses, who were examined even by the Special Court. 12. The next relief claimed by the Petitioner is to direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to appoint independent officer of rank not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police to examine the tape recorded conversation of Respondent No. 7 with underworld gangsters as referred to in the statement of Deputy Commissioner of Police Pradeep Sawant. This relief will have to be turned down as vexatious because of the stand taken by the Department that no such record of tape recorded conversation is in existence and available, as is noted in the evidence of the concerned witnesses examined for that purpose. 13. The next relief is to direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to hold an inquiry/investigation against Respondent No. 7 for having indulged in rampant corruption, under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. For the reasons already recorded, we decline to entertain this relief by way of Public Interest Litigation, that too at the instance of the Petitioners herein. At the same time, we may place on record that the rejection of this Public Interest Litigation is not an expression of opinion on the merits of the pending departmental inquiry against Respondent No. 7, one way or the other. That proceedings will have to be considered on the basis of legal evidence which comes on record in the said proceedings. 14. As regards prayer clause (g), the same also deserves to be rejected for the reasons indicated earlier. Notably, the Petition is filed by one Deepak Suryakant Kavitkar claiming to be the President of the Petitioner organisation. However, it was noticed that the person instructing the Advocate during hearing before us was one Dr. B. S. Kadam. He is the same person who had filed miscellaneous application No. 191 of 2007 and has been named as accused in the MPSC Examination Scam. As regards the affiant, who has verified this Petition for filing it as Public Interest Litigation on behalf of the organisation, the Learned APP, on instructions, stated that he is an offender in some cognizable cases registered against him. Copies of the two FIRs registered against him were produced before us. As regards the affiant, who has verified this Petition for filing it as Public Interest Litigation on behalf of the organisation, the Learned APP, on instructions, stated that he is an offender in some cognizable cases registered against him. Copies of the two FIRs registered against him were produced before us. Further, in one case registered in the year 2009, non-bailable warrants are pending against him. In other words, he is an absconding accused. If the Petition is filed by a fugitive claiming reliefs for himself, it is well settled that the Court must be loath to entertain the same. It will be preposterous to entertain a Public Interest Litigation at the instance of such person alleging acts of commission and omission of the police officer, who investigated the MPSC Examination Scam. 15. Counsel for the Petitioner, however, placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Manohar Lal vs. Vinesh Anand (2001) 5 SCC 407 ), in particular in Paragraph 5 thereof. We fail to understand as to how this decision will be of any avail to the Petitioner. The exposition therein cannot be the basis to entertain reliefs as claimed in this Public Interest Litigation. The observation found in this decision regarding the doctrine of locus standi being totally foreign to criminal jurisprudence can be of no assistance to the Petitioner, when it is found that the Petition is motivated and a subtle attempt to jeopardise the pending trial of a serious crime or disciplinary inquiry, as the case may be. The Public Interest Litigation cannot be allowed to be used to impair the trial of a criminal case regarding the MPSC Examination Scam or to influence the inquiry process in any manner. We place on record the decisions cited by the Learned APP in the case of Citizens Organisation for Public Opinion vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2011 ALL MR (Cri) 1535), in particular Paragraph 16 thereof and another decision in the case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 402 ), in particular Paragraph 174 and the provisions of the “The Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010”, being Rule 5(e), 7(b) and 11(a) to contend that the Petition should not only be dismissed but exemplary cost should be imposed on the Petitioner. We are in agreement with this submission. 16. (2010) 3 SCC 402 ), in particular Paragraph 174 and the provisions of the “The Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010”, being Rule 5(e), 7(b) and 11(a) to contend that the Petition should not only be dismissed but exemplary cost should be imposed on the Petitioner. We are in agreement with this submission. 16. While dismissing this Petition, being motivated Petition, we impose cost quantified at Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to be paid by the Petitioner in State Treasury Account No. 0055 for Police Department, within two weeks from today, failing which, the Collector, Pune shall take steps to recover that amount from Deepak Suryakant Kavitkar, who claims to be the President of the Petitioner organisation, as arrears of land revenue, within eight weeks from today and remit that amount in the above said Account. Compliance report be filed by the Collector, Pune, within the same time, failing which, the Registry shall place this matter under caption “Direction”. 17. In view of dismissal of this Petition, accompanying Criminal Application is also disposed of.