ORDER : B.B. Mangalmurti, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Public Interest Litigation was filed by the present petitioner claiming to be Chairman of Weaver Cooperative Society, Ranchi seeking to espouse the cause of the weavers, who have allegedly been exploited at the hands of the hospitals. 3. Petitioner contended that Co-operative Union of weavers are formed of 99 Primary Co-operative Societies throughout the State, whose prime objective is weaving and weaving relative activities. Weavers Union have diverted the union fund of Rs. 7,03,60,565.50 by unlocking fixed deposit and invested in the construction of the Hospital. They have not taken permission from the Registrar of the Co-operative Society. The by-laws of weavers' union do not provide for opening a hospital. Most of the funds of the Union have been diverted from the weavers' union fund and the construction of the Hospital started. Audit Report of 2000-2005 indicated that medicines of the hospital have been purchased from two agencies named therein. In these firms the respondent no. 17, Director of the Hospital, his brother in laws' were the partners. Similar findings are also recorded in supply of food materials in Audit Report of 2000-2005 where supply worth of Rs. 80 Lakhs to 1 Crore has been placed upon M/s R. Son's Axim Pvt. Ltd., which belong to the brother of the respondent no. 17. This has been done without following any procedure. 4. According to the petitioner, Weavers' Union is registered under Jharkhand Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. It is run with the public money. The terms of appointments, promotion and other service conditions are to be followed as per the Act of 1935. The activities of weavers' union fall under the jurisdiction of Department of Co-operative of the Government of Jharkhand. Instances of induction of relatives of the respondent no. 17 are also seen in various posts in the hospital. It is the allegation of petitioner that fund of the union have been diverted for improper use contrary to the by laws of the Co-operative Societies. 5. When the matter was taken up earlier, it was brought to the notice of this Court that Home Department, Government of Jharkhand has issued a Notification Dated 10.03.2015 bearing memo no. It is the allegation of petitioner that fund of the union have been diverted for improper use contrary to the by laws of the Co-operative Societies. 5. When the matter was taken up earlier, it was brought to the notice of this Court that Home Department, Government of Jharkhand has issued a Notification Dated 10.03.2015 bearing memo no. 1374 in exercise of power conferred by Section-6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and conveyed the pleasure of the Governor of Jharkhand to accord consent to the extension of powers and jurisdiction of the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment in the whole of the State of Jharkhand for investigation in the allegation of irregularities, fraud, embezzlement of public fund of the Chhotanagpur Regional Handloom Weavers Co-operative Union Ltd. Irba, PO & PS-Ormanjhi, Ranchi, the abetment & conspiracy in relation to or in connection with the said offences and any other offences in the aforesaid transaction. Consequent to the consent accorded by the State Government, The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), Government of India has issued Notification dated 19.07.2017 in exercise of its power conferred by section 5(1) and 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and extended the power and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Jharkhand for investigation in the allegations of irregularities, fraud, embezzlement of public fund of the Chhotanagpur Regional Handloom Weavers Co-operative Union Ltd. Irba, PO & PS-Ormanjhi, Ranchi. 6. When the matter was taken up on 02.08.2017, we took note of the order dated 11.09.2015 and the submission of the learned ASGI that in view of the notification of the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, CBI was required to convey its stand in the matter of taking over the investigation of the alleged irregularities in the aforesaid societies. We also found that response on the part of the CBI had not come for almost two years. However, learned counsel for the CBI was allowed time to obtain specific instruction in this regard and file its affidavit before the next date. We also directed the petitioner to file response to the I.A. No. 3172 of 2015 preferred by the respondent no. However, learned counsel for the CBI was allowed time to obtain specific instruction in this regard and file its affidavit before the next date. We also directed the petitioner to file response to the I.A. No. 3172 of 2015 preferred by the respondent no. 17 and 18 wherein certain allegations have been made in respect of the Chairman of the Petitioner Weavers' Society and the deponent of the present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the CBI has informed us that after the matter was adjourned on the previous date, CBI has instituted the FIR being RC04(S)/2017-R on 10.08.2017 under Sections 120B read with 420, 406 and 408 of the Indian Penal Code for the offence of cheating and misappropriation of property for the period of 1996-97 to 2000-2005 against the named accused persons therein including the respondent no. 17 and 18. Learned counsel for the CBI submits that investigation has been started with all sincerity. He submits that prayer of the writ petitioner has been rendered infructuous now. 8. Learned counsel for the CBI has explained that it was only after the notification dated 19.07.2017 bearing no. 228/14/2015-AVD-II, Government of India under section 5 and 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 that formal FIR was instituted on their part. 9. Learned counsel representing the respondent no. 4 and 5 and 17 and 18 submit that institution of FIR by the CBI in no way should be treated to be indictment of the said persons, who may have remedy available in law to defend themselves in the proceeding arising thereof. 10. We are however, constrained to observe that though serious allegations had been made against the deponent of the writ petition, who claims to be the Chairman of Weaver Cooperative Society, Ranchi in I.A. No. 3172 of 2015 relating to his implication in Ratu P.S. Case No. 53 of 2015 dated. 03.04.2015 registered under Section 385 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code on the charges of indulging in the commission of offence of extortion, no response have been made to the allegation made in the instant I.A despite clear direction earlier. Learned counsel for the petitioner has endeavoured to explain some difficulty in filing the response. We, however, take serious note of this conduct of the deponent of the writ petition, who claims to be the Chairman of Weaver Cooperative Society, Ranchi. Learned counsel for the petitioner has endeavoured to explain some difficulty in filing the response. We, however, take serious note of this conduct of the deponent of the writ petition, who claims to be the Chairman of Weaver Cooperative Society, Ranchi. Public Interest Litigation are not meant to be prosecuted by the persons, who have not come with clean antecedents and credentials. We are surprised that though such allegation was made through I.A. No. 3172 of 2015 in the year 2015 itself, petitioner did not care to offer his response to such a serious allegation. 11. We have taken note of the fact that considering the gravity of the allegation raised in the petition, both the State Government and the Central Government have decided to hand over the investigation to the CBI in the year 2015 itself. CBI has also now instituted the FIR. We have been informed that investigation has started in right earnest and shall be taken it to a logical conclusion. We do not wish to observe anything in the matter of investigation at this stage. 12. However, we deprecate the conduct of the petitioner (deponent of the writ petition) in not responding to such an allegation made in connection with Ratu P.S. Case No. 53 of 2015. In the circumstances discussed here-in-above, we also observe that in any such future PIL filed by the deponent of this writ petition, the office would examine his credentials before institution of such PIL. 13. The instant Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of. 14. Pending IA stands closed.