1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (C) No.__ OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF

Bombay Lawyers’ Association
A body registered under the provisions of
the Society Registration Act, 1860, having
its own office at 2A, Ground Floor, Commerce
House, 140, Nagindas Master Road, Fort,
Mumbai-400001 …

Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Mahashtra
2. The Registrar General
High Court, Bombay, Mumbai-400032
3. Union of India,
through the Ld. Attorney General of India.
A-144, A-Block, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi, Delhi 110049

 2
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DRAWN BY DUSHYANT DAVE
SENIOR ADVOCATE

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS:
This group of Petitions raise very serious questions of general
importance as to Independence of Judiciary and protection of
Subordinate Judiciary against any kind of threat or attack on its
Members. Our Constitution expressly confers upon the Courts the
power of Judicial Review and in so far as Fundamental Rights are
concerned, this Hon’ble Court has been assigned the role of a
sentinel on the qui vive. In Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State
of Gujarat, (1991) 4 SCC 406, this Hon’ble Court held, inter-alia,
“43… The subordinate courts at the district level cater to the
need of the masses in administering justice at the base level.
By and large the majority of the people get their disputes
adjudicated in subordinate courts, it is, in the general interest
of the community that the authority of subordinate courts is
protected. If the CJM is led into trap by unscrupulous police
officers and if he is assaulted, handcuffed and roped, the
public is bound to lose faith in courts, which would be
destructive of basic structure of an ordered society. If this is
permitted Rule of Law shall be supplanted by Police Raj.
Viewed in this perspective the incident is not a case of
physical assault on an individual judicial officer instead it is
an onslaught on the institution of the judiciary itself. The
incident is a clear interference with the administration of
justice, lowering its judicial authority. Its effect was not
confined to one District or State, it had a tendency to effect
the entire judiciary in the country... Those who have to
discharge duty in a Court of Justice are protected by the law,
and shielded in the discharge of their duties, any deliberate
interference with the discharge of such duties either in court
or outside the court by attacking the presiding officers of the
court, would amount to criminal contempt and the courts
must take serious cognizance of such conduct.”

 3
It was further observed,
“54…. The apathy of the State Government in taking effective
action against the erring police officers leads to an impression
that in the State of Gujarat, police appears to have upper
hand, as the administration was hesitant in taking action
against the erring police officers. If this practice and tendency
is allowed to grow it would result in serious erosion of the
Rule of Law in the State.…”

BRIEF BACKGROUND:

1. This Hon’ble Court in Rubabuddin Sheikh v State of
Gujarat 2010 (2) SCC 200 directed as under:
“In the present circumstances and in view of the involvement
of the police officials of the State in this crime, we cannot shut
our eyes and direct the State police authorities to continue
with the investigation and the charge-sheet and for a proper
and fair investigation, we also feel that CBI should be
requested to take up the investigation and submit a report in
this Court within six months from the date of handing over a
copy of this judgment and the records relating to this crime to
them.”

In so doing this Hon’ble Court observed,

“The scope of this order, however, cannot deal with the power
of this Court to monitor the investigation, but on the other
hand in order to make sure that justice is not only done, but
also is seen to be done and considering the involvement of the
State police authorities and particularly the high officials of
the State of Gujarat, we are compelled even at this stage to
direct the CBI Authorities to investigate into the matter.”

 4
It was also observed,
“From the above factual discrepancies appearing in the eight
action taken reports and from the charge-sheet, we,
therefore, feel that the Police Authorities of the State of
Gujarat had failed to carry out a fair and impartial
investigation as we initially wanted them to do. It cannot be
questioned that the offences the high police officials have
committed were of grave nature which needs to be strictly
dealt with”

2. Thus, this Hon’ble Court directed CBI investigation into
killings of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kauserbi. After
completing investigation, CBI filed charge sheet against
number of accused including Shri Amit Shah, then Minister of
State for Home, Gujarat. Subsequently in Narmada Bai v.
State of Gujarat, (2011) 5 SCC 79, this Hon’ble Court directed
separate CBI investigation into killing of Tulsiram Prajapati,
which was part of the conspiracy to kill Sohrabuddin and
Kauserbi. It was directed as under:

“In view of the above discussion, the police authorities of the
Gujarat State are directed to hand over all the records of the
present case to CBI within two weeks from this date and CBI
shall investigate all aspects of the case relating to the killing
of Tulsiram Prajapati and file a report to the court
concerned/Special Court having jurisdiction within a period of
six months from the date of taking over of the investigation
from the State police authorities. We also direct the police
authorities of the State of Gujarat, Rajasthan and Andhra
Pradesh to cooperate with the CBI Authorities in conducting
the investigation.”

In so doing this Hon’ble Court was constrained to observe as
under,

 5
“It is not in dispute that it is the age-old maxim that justice
must not only be done but must be seen to be done. The fact
that in the case of murder of an associate of Tulsiram
Prajapati, senior police officials and a senior politician were
accused may shake the confidence of public in investigation
conducted by the State police. If the majesty of the rule of law
is to be upheld and if it is to be ensured that the guilty are
punished in accordance with law notwithstanding their status
and authority which they might have enjoyed, it is desirable to
entrust the investigation to CBI.”

3. Later in CBI v. Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah, (2012) 10 SCC
545, while upholding the order of grant of bail passed by the
Gujarat High Court releasing Shri. Amit Shah on bail, this
Hon’ble Court directed as under:
“In another decision in Ravindra Pal Singh v. Santosh Kumar
Jaiswal [(2011) 4 SCC 746: (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 485] , this
Court directed for transfer of the case outside the State
because some of the accused in a case of fake encounter were
policemen. The case in hand has far more stronger reasons
for being transferred outside the State. We, accordingly,
direct for the transfer of Special Case No. 5 of 2010 pending
in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
CBI, Courtroom No. 2, Mirzapur, Ahmedabad titled CBI v. D.G.
Vanzara to the Court of CBI, Bombay. The Registrar General
of the Gujarat High Court is directed to collect the entire
record of the case from the Court of the Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, CBI, Room No. 2, Mirzapur,
Ahmedabad and to transmit it to the Registry of the Bombay
High Court from where it would be sent to a CBI Court as may
be decided by the Administrative Committee of the High
Court. The Administrative Committee would assign the case
to a court where the trial may be concluded judiciously, in
accordance with law, and without any delay. The
Administrative Committee would also ensure that the trial
should be conducted from beginning to end by the same
officer.

 6
Sohrabuddin case [Criminal Miscellaneous No. 12240 of 2010,
order dated 29-10-2010 (Guj)] stands transferred to Mumbai
by this order. It is the case of CBI that the case of
Sohrabuddin and the case of Tulsiram Prajapati are closely
connected and in order to avoid any miscarriage of justice,
both the cases can only be tried before the same court. It will,
therefore, be open to CBI to make an application for transfer
of Tulsiram Prajapati case also to the same court where
Sohrabuddin case [Criminal Miscellaneous No. 12240 of 2010,
order dated 29-10-2010 (Guj)] is transferred. In case such an
application is filed, the court will pass appropriate orders, in
accordance with law, after hearing all concerned.”

4. However, without allowing the trial to be completed,
discharge application under Section 227 of the CrPC was
moved on behalf of Shri Amit Shah in 2013. The said
application was first heard by Learned CBI Judge, Hon’ble J T
Utpat, who appears to have declined exemption from
appearance to Shri. Amit Shah on 06.06.2014 and fixed the
trial for hearing on June 20 th on which date again Shri. Amit
Shah appears to have failed to appear before the Court. The
Learned Judge fixed the matter on June 26, 2014. However
before he could hear it on that date, the Learned Judge was
transferred post haste on June 25 th by the Administrative
Committee of the Bombay High Court. This transfer was
clearly contrary to express direction of this Hon’ble Court
made on September 27, 2012 as referred above. The
circumstances leading to the transfer are extremely
suspicious and require investigation by this Hon’ble Court
since this transfer appears to be a precursor or at least
related to the subsequent appointment of Hon’ble Judge
Brijgopal Harkishan Loya as the CBI Judge and his subsequent
death within few months, i.e. December 01, 2014. If the
Administrative Committee of the High Court did feel
compelled to transfer Hon’ble Judge Utpat it was incumbent
upon it to approach this Hon’ble Court for appropriate orders.
Failure to do so raises serious questions, if not doubts, about
the functioning of the Administrative Committee of the High
Court. It appears that Hon’ble Judge Loya granted exemption

 7
to Shri Amit Shah but on October 31, 2014 he seems to have
questioned the necessity of exemption when Shri. Shah could
be in Mumbai and attend political functions and accordingly
had fixed the trials for hearing on December 15, 2014. Sadly,
the sudden and untimely death of Hon’ble Judge Loya
intervened on December 1, 2014. Subsequently Hon’ble Judge
M. B Gosavi was appointed and by his order dated 30 th
December 2014 he was pleased to allow the discharge
application in a serious matter involving killings or three
persons for which this Hon’ble Court had directed CBI
investigation after recording findings of involvement of high
officials of Gujarat and their attempt to tamper with evidence
and course of justice. It is surprising, with respect, that the
Learned Judge could pass the order of discharge in such a
short time in respect of matters involving thousands of pages
of evidence and hundreds of witnesses. (However the merits
of the said order are not being questioned herein).
5. Pertinently, the CBI did not file appeals against discharge
order despite mandate from the Supreme Court to investigate
and file charge sheets against the accused including Shri.
Amit Shah. However CBI has subsequently filed appeals
against discharge of some police officers including Shri M. K.
Amin, Shri. Himanshu Singh and Shri. Shyam Singh Charan. It
also appears that Rubabuddin, the original Petitioner before
this Hon’ble Court also challenged the discharge order by
filing Criminal Revision Application (St) No. 413 of 2015 but
on October 5, 2015 Shri Rubabuddin withdrew the application
for condonation of delay and thus the criminal revision
application was held as not maintainable by the Hon’ble
Bombay High Court under its order dated November 23 rd
2015.
6. It is in the above background that the present group of
petition need serious and thorough consideration by this
Hon’ble Court. For this purpose it would be imperative and in
the interest of justice that the Respondents are directed to file
appropriate affidavits to bring their case before this Hon’ble
Court “on oath”. After all, proceedings before this Hon’ble
Court under Article 32 are under extraordinary original

 8
jurisdiction and it is well settled that unless the allegations
contained in the Writ petition are denied specifically they are
deemed to be admitted. Therefore this Hon’ble Court may
direct the Respondents to file their replies at the earliest.

RE: REPORT PREPARED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE
INTELLIGENCE DATED 28.11.2017

1. At the outset it is submitted that the so called discreet enquiry
and subsequent report prepared by the Commissioner of State
Intelligence appears to be an attempt to stall independent and
just investigation into the unfortunate death of Hon’ble Judge
Loya. Everyday large numbers of reports appear in
newspapers and magazines about the conduct and misconduct
on the part of Executive and its officers. It is rare, if not
impossible, to find the State Government being thrown into
action forthwith to enquire into those allegations. Herein on
23rd November 2017 State Government directs the office of
Commissioner of State Intelligence to conduct discreet
verification. On the same day the Commissioner of State
Intelligence Department addresses a letter to the Hon’ble
Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court seeking permission to
record the say of the judicial officers, claiming that the four
Hon’ble Judicial officers had accompanied Judge Loya to the
hospital on 1.12.2014. (The very basis of this enquiry stands
exposed by this statement as it is inconceivable that without
holding the enquiry the Commissioner of State Intelligence
could have reached a conclusion that they had so
accompanied). Curiously, on the very day i.e. November 23 rd
the High Court of Bombay communicates to the Commissioner
of State Intelligence that the Hon’ble Chief Justice has
granted permission to record the say of the said Hon’ble
Judicial Officers.
2. It is well impossible to find such alacrity amongst public
functionaries. The speed at which these three orders have
been made on the same day raises serious doubts about the
exercise.

 9

3. Within five days the Commissioner of State Intelligence
prepares his report on November 28 and submits to the State
Government and concludes in paragraph 8 and 9 as under:
“8. The undersigned has discreetly verified the facts
connected with the sad demise of Mr. Loya and has found that
the CARAVAN Report dated 20-11-2017 (Page 7 to 11) has
made several unsubstantiated claims and is replete with
falsehoods. In fact, Judge Mr. Loya suffered a heart attack in
the presence of his colleagues belonging to judicial fraternity
who made all possible efforts to provide medical assistance to
save him.
9. It is unfortunate the false allegations and innuendos
against the Senior Judicial Officers are made vide the said
report to create doubts in the minds of people which could
undermine people’s faith in the Judiciary in particular and the
system of governance on a larger canvas. The government
may kindly take a view in this regard. ”
4. The documents and statements which are part of the said
report suffer from glaring, obvious and fatal inconsistencies,
contradictions and omissions, thereby prima facie destroying
the truthfulness of the report based on the enquiry. They are
as follows:
(i)

Death Investigation Report prepared under Section 174
of the Cr.PC by PSI R K Mundhe of Sitabardi Police
Station, Nagpur City is dated 01.12.2014 (Page 22-23)
which categorically records that the deceased was
recognized by Dr. Prashant Bajrang Rati and does not
speak a word about the presence of anyone else,
especially the Hon’ble Judicial Officers who now claim to
have been present at that time. The statement of Shri.
Rati recorded at 8:30 am (the death having been
recorded at 6:15 am) {Pg 18} also does not speak about
anyone else’s presence or about anyone having been
involved. Shri. Rati’s statement read as a whole clearly
establishes complete absence of anyone else on the
scene. Dr. Rati in his statement allegedly given to

 10
Commissioner of State Intelligence 22.11.2017 (Pg 56A)
also does not refer to presence of any other person
including the Hon’ble Judicial Officers but suggests on
the contrary that since none was available he was
requested by his uncle to “complete all the procedure
and send the dead body to the native place in Latur.
Hence I completed the procedure and had taken the
dead body in my custody.” But suggests that the
ambulance carrying the dead body “was followed by two
persons from law department and one policeman”.
(ii)

Case papers of Meditrina Institute of Medical Sciences
(Page 15-17) clearly record that the patient “was
brought with no evidence of life to our hospital”. This
document surprisingly shows that the patient was
admitted by Shrikant D Kulkarni (Hon’ble Judge) who
disclosed his relation to the deceased as “friend”. The
document shows cause of death as “undetermined
(unknown)”.
Doctor’s Progress Notes are more telling and show “As
per History given by accompanying person - __chest
pain-yday night”. At Pages 4o to 43 receipt and final
patient bill summary of Meditrina are enclosed which
make even curious reading. For a patient who was
allegedly brought dead, the final bill is, inter-alia, for
“Non Invasive Lab”, “Neurosurgery”, “diet consultation”,
“non medical expenses” amongst others and raised a bill
of Rs 5540 and after giving discount of Rs 1250, a net
bill of Rs 4290. This is absolutely shocking and belies the
claim of Meditrina Hospital fully. These documents are
clearly self serving and have been procured to mislead
the investigation in right direction.

(iii)

Post Mortem Report at Pages 25 to 32 also appears to
be a fabricated document. The description of clothes and
of ornaments on the body is shown as follows: “brown
colour full shirt, blue jeans pant with black belt…” (It is
inconceivable that if indeed Hon’ble Judge Loya suffered
heart attack in his sleep at 4 am, as is made to believe,

 11
he would be sleeping in such clothes). Rigor Mortis- well
marked sight or absent whether present in whole body
or part only shows, “slightly present in the upper limbs.
Not appeared in lower limbs.” Now interestingly the post
mortem report does not indicate the time. The
documents at Page 33 to 35 also do not give any time
while handing over and taking back the body from the
Medical College Hospital, Nagpur City. But it does
indicate that the dead body was placed in the mortuary
of the Medical Hospital and subsequently it must have
been taken for post mortem. This Hon’ble Court in Baso
Prasad v State of Biharhas extensively discussed rigor
mortis from well known textbooks of Modi and Parikh on
Medical Jurisprudence And Toxicology. Modi’s textbook
says
“Rigor mortis first appears in the involuntary muscles,
and then in the voluntary muscles. In the heart it
appears, as a rule, within an hour after death, and may
be mistaken for hypertrophy, and its relaxation or
dilatation, atrophy or degeneration.”
Further it states,
“Time of onset.—This varies greatly in different cases,
but the average period of its onset may be regarded as
three to six hours after death in temperate climates, and
it may take two to three hours to develop. In India, it
usually commences in one to two hours after death”.
Now, one can assume that post mortem was done several
hours later and therefore rigor mortis would have set in
fully. The post mortem report is therefore contrary to the
well accepted concepts of medical science in recording
the findings on rigor mortis as above. Document
obtained under RTI and now in Public Domain from the
said medical college Nagpur in January 2018 shows post
mortem having been done at 10:50 am by Dr. Tumram
(enclosed as Annexure I). But the entry appears to have
been interpolated.

 12
Similarly some pages appear to be missing from the Post
Mortem Report filed along with Report of the
Commissioner Intelligence which is Page 25 therein. A
copy of the said missing page, now in public domain and
obtained under RTI is enclosed herewith as Annexure
II. This document refers to Police Reports on 10/12/14
and 07/12/14 respectively. The record does not show any
such reports of those dates. But what is important is that
this page 25 has been withheld even from this Hon’ble
Court.
As against that the form under which the dead body was
sent for post mortem records the status of rigor mortis
quite differently and records rigor mortis as “well
marked”. Interestingly both this form and the post
mortem report are allegedly prepared by same doctor N
K Tumram on December 01, 2014.
Equally the opinion as to cause of death differs. In the
form Dr. Tumram gives opinion as follows: “a case of
sudden death” while in post mortem report he records it
as “coronary artery insufficiency”.
(iv)

Shockingly as late as 05.02.2015 the Regional Forensic
Science Laboratory appears to have forwarded its report
on viscera sent on 01.12.2014 which records its
conclusion as under: “General and specific chemical
testing does not reveal any poison in exhibit nos. (1), (2)
and (3)” and shows that the analysis started on
05.01.2015 and was completed on 19.01.2015 and was
conducted in pursuance of AD No 44/14 of PS Sadar
under Section 174 of CrPC. Now clearly on 01.12.2014
Seetabardi Police Station was investigating and had
taken steps to forward the body for post mortem and
complete other procedure. Form prepared by Dr
Tumram also shows that forwarding officer was “PC
Pankaj 6538 PS Seetabardi”. P C Pankaj is the same
person who has prepared dead body handing and other
reports. So it is clear that Viscera Report of 5.2.2015 is
again fabricated as it refers to PS Sadar instead of
Sitabardi as having forwarded the same.

 13

It is only on 10.12.2014 (Page 39A) that Sadar Police
Station swings into action and addresses a letter to
Medical Hospital, Nagpur to change the name in all the
records of the hospital of Hon’ble Judge Loya from Brij
Mohan Harikishan Loya to Brijgopal Harkishan Loya
(Now it is impossible that Hon’ble Judges who claimed to
have accompanied late Judge Loya would not have given
correct name on December 1, 2014 to various
authorities and hospitals).
(v)

More curious is Page 40A and 41A which show that
Sadar Police Station is making a fresh accidental death
summary almost one and a half year later i.e. on
2.2.2016. In so doing Shri S S Gaja of Police Station
Sadar records as under:
“Sir,
PSI SD Warade was day officer on 01/12/2014. E got AD
no 00/14, 174 CrPC from PC Pankaj B No 6238 [from
Sitabardi Police Station]. The said AD was that of Shri.
Brijgopal Harikishan Loya, age 48 years, resident of
Hajiali Government Colony, Building No 11. Mumbai.
On perusing the case diary, I found that the place of
occurrence is in jurisdiction of Police Station Sadar, so I
registered AD No 44/14, u/s 174 Cr.PC”.
If AD No 44/14 is registered as late as in February 2016
how is it that the number finds reference in regional
forensic science report on viscera dated 5.2.2015.
Clearly something is seriously remiss.

(vi)

The statements of the four Hon’ble Judges have omitted
to say much more than what they have stated. For
example, none of them give the suite number at Ravi
Bhawan in which Hon’ble Judge Loya had stayed the
night of November 30/December 1 st. (Documents
obtained under RTI and now in public domain of the
Register of Ravi Bhawan of that date clearly does not
show any entry of Judge Loya having stayed there. The

 14
same is attached herewith as Annexure III). Further
Hon’ble Judge Kulkarni claims that he along with
Hon’ble Judge Loya and Hon’ble Judge Modak stayed in
the same suite, something that is impossible to digest.
None of the Hon’ble Judge, who claim to be close
colleagues of late Judge Loya, even claim to have
informed the wife of the late Judge whom they knew very
well as some of them lived together in the same colony.
This is clearly a very unnatural conduct since the first
thing upon someone’s health becoming bad would be to
inform the family members. If indeed Judge Loya
complained of chest pain at 4 am, why were no phone
calls made till he allegedly died at 6:15 am or even
thereafter is a moot question. Hon’ble Judge Barbe even
states that “We all were in deep shock. Myself and Judge
Kulkarni met the relatives of Judge Loya at Hajiali
colony after few days”. This is absolutely an unnatural
conduct. If indeed they were together, any reasonable
man’s conduct would have been to accompany the dead
body to the home town of Judge Loya where he was
cremated. Hon’ble Judge Barde claims that “While Shri
Loya sir was in ICU I tried to contact the friends of Shri
Loya sir at Hajiali government colony where he was
residing. Shri O K Bhutada, Senior Civil Judge could be
contacted to whom the entire occurrence was told. Shri
Modak sir and Shri Kulkarni sir also contacted the other
friends of Shri Loya sir at Hajiali, known to them and
told the occurrence to them. Local judges were also
called at the hospital. The Hon’ble High Court Judges
and Judges from the District Judiciary and some court
staff approached the hospital and some were consulting
the doctor. Judge Shri Bhutada from Mumbai provided
my mobile number to the near relatives of Shri Loya sir
and by making call to me told that I should inform the
happenings at hospital to such near relatives if they
contact me. Some relatives contacted me to whom I told
the happenings and that they may come to Nagpur.”
These statements do not appear to be voluntary and
contain inherent contradictions. If indeed the Hon’ble

 15
Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, the Registrar
General, other Hon’ble Judges of High Court and other
responsible Hon’ble Judges and colleagues of late Judge
Loya were present at hospital, surely someone should
have made an effort to contact the wife and ensure that
the family is flown into Nagpur at the first available
flight. Smt. Loya in her statement dated 27.11.2017 to
Commissioner Intelligence states,
“At around 5 am on 1/12/14 we got call from of Shri
Modak and he informed that Brij-ji was not feeling well
and so he was taken to a hospital”.
But Hon’ble Judge Modak in his statement categorically
states that “At the hospital doctors have declared him
dead. We have informed this fact to our judges at hajiali
colony. We all were in shock. I do not exactly remember
who informed this fact to family members of Loya”.
(vii)

The attempt to extract statements from the wife, son,
father and the sister of Late Judge Loya by the
Intelligence Department of Maharashtra State is to say
the least, unfortunate and unwarranted. It is a matter of
record that the son had indeed given a letter in 2015 for
filing of an FIR and/or instituting an enquiry into the
unfortunate death. The father and the sister who are
both responsible citizens have in video recorded
interviews to Caravan magazine demanded enquiry and
made startling allegations including as offering of bribes
on behalf of Shri Amti shah by former Chief Justice of
Bombay High Court, Shri Mohit Shah. Surely the father
and the sister were privy to what was happening in the
life of Judge Loya before he passed away. These
interviews completely belie the Report and the
documents contained therein and prepared by the
Commissioner of State Intelligence. On the contrary the
video interviews clearly demand fiercely independent
investigation into the death of Judge Loya.

(viii)

It is a cause of serious concern and cause for
investigation that the security of Judge Loya was

 16
withdrawn on 24.11.2014, a week before his death and
hence Judge Loya did not have any personal security at
the time of his death. Documents obtained under RTI
and now in public domain indicating the same in
attached hereto as Annexure IV

5. It is respectfully submitted that the report by the
Commissioner of State Intelligence is self serving and has
been prepared and presented do this Hon’ble Court to mislead
this Hon’ble Court. The report appears to be wholly incorrect
and contains material inconsistencies and contradictions. The
author of the report should be called upon to file an affidavit
in support of the report so that appropriate proceedings can
be instituted against him under Section 340 of CrPC read with
Section 195 (1) (b) of the Code.
6. It is respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to consider that the matter should be heard and
decided by the Hon’ble High Court under Article 226 and not
by this Hon’ble Court under Article 32 since Article 226 is
much wider in scope. It is therefore prayed that the matter be
relegated to the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.
7. In the alternative it is respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble

Court may forthwith order an independent enquiry by a
Special Investigation Team comprising of independent
persons into the death of Hon’ble Judge Loya and upon
receiving report therefrom take such further actions as
required in law to instil confidence in the minds of people at
large.