ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. Before we proceed with the matter, the order, which was recorded on 21st August, 2013, needs to be reproduced, which is hereunder:- (1) Learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Jharkhand is seriously challenging the bona-fide of the petitioner and points out several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and submitted that petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and he has no locus-standi. He seeks time to file detailed affidavit pointing out several other aspects of the petitioner. (2) Counsel for the petitioner has argued the case at length and pointed out that in the year, 2009 out of total 81 members of Legislative Assembly of the State of Jharkhand criminal cases were pending against 59 members. He has also read out in detail the annexure which reveal person-wise cases and the provisions of Indian Penal Code under which charges have been levelled against them, however, petitioner is not knowing whether the charge-sheet has been filed against these persons or not. Likewise, other details of those criminal cases are not known to the petitioner. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that against several Members of Legislative Assembly several dozens of cases are pending in the various courts of Jharkhand and if the cases are at the investigation stage, the investigation may be completed at the earliest and if the cases are pending in the trial court, the same may also be completed at the earliest. (3) Having heard the counsel for both the sides, we hereby direct the petitioner to point out the following to this Court on oath: (a) How many cases have been filed so far by this petitioner-organisation through its members/office-bearers, present as well as past, in all the courts with the names of the parties and cases numbers. (b) Outcome of those case and/or present status of those cases. (c) The details of the cases, numbers or any other further detail of the cases pending against the persons referred to in the memo of the petition, shall also be revealed by the petitioner on oath. (4) We direct the State of Jharkhand to file an affidavit regarding: (a) The status of the cases pending against the persons who have been referred in this petition. (4) We direct the State of Jharkhand to file an affidavit regarding: (a) The status of the cases pending against the persons who have been referred in this petition. (b) If the investigations are pending against the persons who are referred in the memo of petition, all the details will be given person-wise. (c) If the cases are pending in any court of the State of Jharkhand, the number of the cases and the stage at which the criminal case or any other case will also be pointed out by the State. (5) The affidavit shall be filed by the Secretary, Home Department of State of Jharkhand. (6) The matter is adjourned to be listed on 12th of September, 2013. 3. Learned Advocate General, by referring to Annexure-B annexed with the Affidavit dated 16.10.2014, submits that almost in all the cases, except one or two where the investigations are pending, charge sheets have been submitted and now, it would be for the competent court to proceed with the trial and, therefore, in view of the prayer made in the instant W.P. (PIL) to the effect that the investigating agency be directed to submit the charge sheets where the cases are pending for the investigation, the instant W.P. (PIL) be disposed of in terms of the prayer made by the petitioner itself. 4. As against this, Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that apart from the cases, reference of which, are there in Annexure-B to the affidavit dated 16.10.2014, other cases are also there, investigations of which are being made either by the C.B.I. or the Enforcement Directorate and hence, investigation in those cases need to be expedited. 5. Upon it, learned Advocate General submits that so far as those cases are concerned, Public Interest Litigations are already there which have been filed on behalf of the petitioner and, therefore, no specific direction needs to be made in those cases, as those cases would be governed by the orders passed in the respective Public Interest Litigations. 6. Further it was pointed out that almost in all those cases, investigations of which had been taken over either by the CBI or the Enforcement Directorate, charge sheets have already been submitted and those cases are now fixed for trial. 7. 6. Further it was pointed out that almost in all those cases, investigations of which had been taken over either by the CBI or the Enforcement Directorate, charge sheets have already been submitted and those cases are now fixed for trial. 7. Having heard the parties, it appears that almost in all the cases pertaining to M.L.As, charge sheets have been filed by the respective investigating agencies in which either trials are to be commenced or it has already been commenced. 8. Under the circumstances, we are disposing of this W.P. (PIL) in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Public Interest Foundation & Others vs. Union of India & Another, W.P. (Civil) No. 536 of 2011, whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to give direction, which is as follows:- “12. We, accordingly, direct that in relation to sitting MPs and MLAs who have charges framed against them for the offences which are specified in Section 8(1), 8(2) and 8(3) of the RP Act, the trial shall be concluded as speedily and expeditiously as may be possible and in no case later than one year from the date of the framing of charges. In such cases, as far as possible, the trial shall be conducted on a day-to-day basis. If for some extraordinary circumstances the concerned court is being not able to conclude the trial within one year from the date of framing of charges, such court would submit the report to the Chief Justice of the respective High Court indicating special reasons for not adhering to the above time limit and delay in conclusion of the trial. In such situation, the Chief Justice may issue appropriate directions to the concerned court extending the time for conclusion of the trial.” 9. Accordingly, this W.P. (PIL) is disposed of.