1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3640 OF 2009 [Kishor Babubhai Ruparel .vrs. High Court of Bombay through Registrar and another] ..................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. J.T. Gilda, Advocate for petitioner, Mr. A.S. Jaiswal, Advocate for respondents. .......... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : MAY 03, 2010. Heard. By this petition, the petitioner, who is a Social Worker and Journalist, has sought direction to respondent no.1 i.e. Registrar General of this Court to hold an enquiry into the matter of grant of anticipatory bail by respondent no.2 i.e. District Judge-1, Akola to Fida Hussain Yahyabhai Bohra and to take necessary disciplinary action against respondent no.2. In brief, according to the petitioner, respondent no.2 had granted anticipatory bail to the 2 said accused for the offences under sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7, 13(ii) and (iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in the Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.654/2007 without specifying the crime number for which the bail was granted as there were various offences registered against the said accused in various parts of the State. The petitioner stated that the complaint addressed to the Hon’ble Chief Justice was directed to be placed before the Hon’ble Senior Judge of this Bench, who has refused to consider the request of the present petitioner for enquiry into the matter. Mr. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents, states that respondent no.2 has retired with effect from 31.3.2010. Moreover, the learned counsel for the respondents, points out that the order granting anticipatory bail though reversed by this Court, has been ultimately upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. This position is not disputed. We are satisfied that there is absolutely no material warranting consideration of the prayers of the petitioner. We failed to understand why such 3 petition has been filed for the reliefs, as prayed for, in respect of judicial order which was wrong, could have been got corrected by adopting the procedure established by law. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande