Shri Shashank Indapurkar, Advocate for respondent no.7. Shri A.S.Tomar, Advocate for the proposed Intervener. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally.

2. This habeas corpus petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking direction to respondent nos. 1 to 5/State to search and trace Shri Munnalal Goyal, MLA, Constituency - Gwalior (East), whose whereabouts are said to be not known for last nine days. Directions have further been sought for securing his release from illegal detention of respondent nos. 6 and 8. It has also been prayed that the inquiry into the matter be handed over to respondent no.7/CBI.

3. The petition has been filed as an aftermath of a communication dated 16/3/2020 sent by the petitioner to the Police Authorities for tracing Shri Munnalal Goyal. In the said communication, it has been averred that the voters of the constituency including the petitioner are perturbed over sudden disappearance of Shri Munnalal Goyal.

4. So far as the locus standi of the petitioner to file the instant THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP. No. 6844/2020 ( Umesh Kumar Bohare Vs. State of M.P. and others ) (2) habeas corpus petition is concerned, in the entire petition, petitioner has not stated himself to be a relative/friend of Shri Munnalal Goyal. He claims to be a voter of the constituency and hence concerned. In this behalf, the Apex Court in the case of Charanjit Lal Chowdhury Vs. The Union of India (AIR 1951 SC 41) has held that a writ for a relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, though not at the instance of an utter stranger, is at least available through a friend or relation of the detenu, who can apply for a writ of habeas corpus questioning the detention. Relying upon the same, a five Judge Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Ram Kumar Vs. District Magistrate, Delhi (AIR 1966 P&H 51 = 1966 CriLJ 153) has answered the question as to maintainability of a writ of habeas corpus at the instance of a person who is neither a friend nor a relation of the detenu in the following terms:-

(Emphasis supplied) The petitioner is neither a relative nor a friend, but can only be placed under the category of "stranger". In view of the above settled legal position, in the opinion of this Court, he lacks the locus to move the present petition.

5. Further, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the point in issue is sub judice before the Apex Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Congress Legislature Party Vs. Union of THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP. No. 6844/2020 ( Umesh Kumar Bohare Vs. State of M.P. and others ) (4) India and others, a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, wherein specific pleadings have been made with regard to illegal detention of respondent nos. 5 to 19 (therein), which includes the name of the corpus as respondent no.12. As such, when the question with regard to illegal detention of the corpus is sub judice before the Apex Court, this Court is proscribed from taking cognizance in the matter.

6. Even otherwise, son of the corpus has moved an intervention application (I.A. No.1536/2020), which is hereby allowed.

The said application has been filed along with an authority letter of the corpus, wherein the corpus has categorically stated that he, on his own volition, is staying in Bangalore (Karnataka) along with his friends.

It has been stated in the intervention application that the petitioner who is a practicing lawyer of this Court is in a habit of filing such vague petitions, without locus, for fulfilling his political intentions.

7. In view of the aforesaid, nothing remains in this habeas corpus petition to adjudicate upon. The same is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable.

However, before parting, looking to the conduct of the petitioner, this Court is constrained to saddle an exemplary cost of THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP. No. 6844/2020 ( Umesh Kumar Bohare Vs. State of M.P. and others ) (5) Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) upon him for wasting the precious time of this Court, to be deposited with the Principal Registrar of this Court within a period of thirty days from today, for being utilized in the up-liftment of the Dispensary located in the High Court campus at Gwalior.

If the cost is not deposited within the period stipulated hereinabove, Registry shall place this matter before this Court for further directions.