Judgment : 1. The petitioner herein has filed this writ petition by way of public interest litigation, being the President of Valliyur Criminal Bar Association seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to appoint a Special Investigating Agency to investigate Crime No.164 of 2012 on the file of Thirukurungudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 2. As per the Order dated 9.1.2014, the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli District has been arrayed as one of the party respondent. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made two submissions before the Court. The first submission is that the weapon used in the alleged offence being a gun, there is likelihood of large scale use of unlicensed guns as reported in a newspaper and therefore the same will have to be stopped by taking stringent action. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.4 is protecting the accused being his relatives by interfering with the investigation. 4. We have perused the affidavit as well as the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner and also the counter affidavits filed apart from the documents submitted by the parties. A perusal of the reply affidavit filed by respondent No.5 would show that the Investigation has been transferred in favour of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi as per the proceedings dated 4.1.2013 itself. Thereafter the case is being investigated at present by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi. 5. Therefore, we are of the view that the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are misconceived. We also do not find any substance in the allegation that respondent No.4 is interfering with the investigation. Insofar as alleged spreading of gun culture is concerned, a news paper report cannot be the basis for coming to such a conclusion. The weapon said to have been involved in Crime No.164 of 2012 is an old D.B.B.L short gun. It was also recovered by the respondents. A case has been registered under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. From the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5, it is seen that a ballistic report has also been obtained and statements have also been obtained from the accused persons. Therefore, considering the same, we do not find any reason to transfer the investigation as sought for by the writ petitioner, as it is being done by a Senior Police Officer. From the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5, it is seen that a ballistic report has also been obtained and statements have also been obtained from the accused persons. Therefore, considering the same, we do not find any reason to transfer the investigation as sought for by the writ petitioner, as it is being done by a Senior Police Officer. In such view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.