6. It is further pointed out that the State Government passed orders in their G.O.Ms.No.310 Home (SC-A) Department dated 13.12.2006 for exercise of powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the State. It is further stated that the State Government has issued consent for investigation by the CBI under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, with regard to the transaction of sale of Ac.400 of land in Gachibowli and delivery of advance possession of Ac.450 of land at Mamidipalli in favour of a company of which the 14th respondent is the co-chairman, but so far the investigation has not been carried to its logical conclusion. Hence, this writ petition has been instituted.
7. Learned senior counsel Sri Susheel Kumar appearing for the writ petitioner, apart from placing reliance upon the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 12.07.2011 and 10.08.2011 in W.P.No.794 of 2011 and batch of cases, has also drawn our attention to the Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Kazi Lhendup Dorji Vs. Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors[1] wherein in paragraph 15, it has been stated as under:-
“15. As regards delay in filing of writ petition we find that after the issuance of the impugned Notification in 1987, efforts were made by the Central Government during the period from 1988 to 1992 to persuade the Government of Sikkim to accord the necessary consent and when the said attempts failed, the petitioner moved this Court in 1993. Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations of corruption that have been made against a person holding the high public office of Chief Minister in the State which have cast a cloud on his integrity, it is of utmost importance that the truth of these allegations is judicially determined. Such a course would subserve public interest and public morality because the Chief Minister of a State should not function under a cloud. It would also be in the interest of respondent No. 4 to have his honour vindicated by establishing that the allegations are not true. The cause of justice would, therefore, be better served by permitted the petitioner to agitate the issued raised by him in the writ petition than by non-suiting him on the ground of laches.” More
