JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India for direction upon the concerned respondent to conclude the investigation of Vigilance P.S. Case No.30 of 2016 (Vigilance Case No.32 of 2016), Vigilance P.S. Case No.31 of 2016 (Vigilance Case No.33 of 2016) and Vigilance P.S. Case No.32 of 2016 (Vigilance Case No.34 of 2016), in accordance with statute and as per the materials in the record as soon as possible. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is one of the witness in the present case and after much persuasion by the petitioner and others to the competent authority; the present case has been instituted after thorough internal enquiry which relates to defalcation and misappropriation of huge Government fund related with land acquisition of Tilatand Munra, District- Dhanbad. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even after more than five years till now, charge sheet has not yet been submitted. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner submitted several representations to the competent authority for completion of the investigation but it is of no avail. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer of the petitioner as mentioned above be allowed. 4. Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel-III on the other hand opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition and in this respect, learned Senior Standing Counsel-III relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vinoy Kumar vs. State of U.P. And Others reported in (2001) 4 SCC 734 , paragraph no.2 of which reads and under:- “2. Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence, that the court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries are caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief.” And submitted that the fundamental right of the petitioner is neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Standing Counsel-III that the Anti-Corruption Bureau is carrying out the investigation whole heartedly but since the case involves voluminous records so, without complete investigation which is taking considerable time, final form cannot be submitted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau in the cases till today but the learned Senior Standing Counsel-III assures that the Anti-Corruption Bureau will make all efforts for expeditious investigation of the case. It is lastly submitted that since the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition, the same be dismissed being not maintainable. 5. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that the petitioner has failed to establish that any of his fundamental rights have been invaded or acquired interest have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed being not maintainable. 7. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed being not maintainable. 7. Before parting, it is pertinent to mention here that since the learned Senior Standing Counsel-III has submitted that the Anti-Corruption Bureau is taking steps for expeditious investigation of the case, it is expected that the investigation of the case will be done in terms of the Resolution 1623/Anu. dated 07.08.2015 of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi.