1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 886 OF 2008 Suresh Namdeorao Deth .... PETITIONER V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra & Oths. .... RESPONDENTS Mr.P.S.Pawar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.B.Khandare, Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. S.T.Shelke, Advocate for respondent no. 5. Mr. V.D.Sapkal, Advocate for respondent no. 8. CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 19/04/2010 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition in public interest, which high lights, according to the petitioner the dubious method resorted to by the respondent no. 9 for aspiring to be selected/nominated for the National Teachers’ Award 2007-08. According to the petitioner, respondent no. 9 had tendered false and fabricated documents in order to ensure that the respondent no. 9 was nominated for the National Teachers’ Award. 2. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. It appears that the claim of respondent no. 9 for being selected for the National Teachers’ Award came to be ripped in the bud and the name of respondent no. 9 2 was not recommended for the said Award. Pursuant thereto, an affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 8, in which it is stated that on the basis of the allegations against respondent no. 9, an enquiry came to be started and the report thereof came to be forwarded to the higher authorities. Accordingly, an offence came be registered against respondent no. 9 on 21/3/2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 417, 465 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further stated that thereafter another fact of finding enquiry came to be conducted and the conclusion of the said enquiry was that it was respondent no. 9 alone who was responsible for the fraud which was practiced by her in order to ensure that her name was recommended for the said Award. 3. Mr. Pawar, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us, by referring to the Govt. Resolution that respondent no. 9 alone could not have committed the said offence without the active participation and collusion of the other respondents. It is further urged before us that the other officials of the Govt. are equally responsible for the said act. 4. This is a public interest litigation and and the prayer of the petitioner stands satisfied in the light of the fact that an appropriate action has been taken against respondent no. 9. As to whether others are also involved in the said offence, is not an enquiry to be conducted in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Since offence has already been registered against respondent no. 9, any observation made by us touching the merits of the present controversy, is likely to prejudicially affect the out-come of the police investigation, etc. Since an enquiry has already been conducted, according to us, the relief which the petitioner has prayed for , stands granted to the petitioner. 5. Since petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court the 3 fraud committed by respondent no. 9 in producing fabricated and forged documents and in the light of the fact that the offence has been registered against respondent no. 9, we do not impose any cost on the petitioner while dismissing the petition as infructuous. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs. 6. The amount deposited by the petitioner in Court is permitted to be withdrawn. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/ Crim. WP 886.08