Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010130202024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3376/2024 BIJOY KUMAR KANO S/O- LATE INDRAJIT KANO, R/O- VILLAGE- CHARGOLA, T.E, P.O- LILACHILA, DIST- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN-788734 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE COMMISSIONER OF PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ASSAM PANJABARI GUWAHATI- 781037 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ ASSAM 4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KARIMGANJ ZILLA PARISHAD DIST-KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788736 5:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER Page No.# 2/9 DULLAVCHERRA DIST-KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788736 6:THE SECRETARY CHARGOLA GAON PANCHAYAT KARIMGANJ ASSAM 7:SRI BIJAY MALAKAR MLA RATABARI LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUENCY RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 5 P.O.-R.K NAGAR DIST.-KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-78816 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J M A CHOUDHURY, MR. A B T HAQUE Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 26-08-2025 Heard Mr. J.M.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned standing counsel, P&RD Department appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 and Mr. H. Sarma, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam appears for the respondent No. 3. 2. The grievance raised in the present proceeding pertains to the inaction on the part of the respondent authority in implementing action plan/ development plan for the year 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 for the Chargola Gaon Panchayat. Page No.# 3/9 3. The petitioner in the present proceeding was the erstwhile President of the Chargola Gaon Panchayat. The grievance of the petitioner is that the action plan/ development plan for the financial years 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 is required to be implemented strictly in accordance with the action plan submitted in the matter by the Chargola Gaon Panchayat, after the approval for the schemes was received from the Gram Sabha. The respondents had filed an affidavit, wherein they had contended that the respondent authority had not approved the action plan as submitted initially for the year 2021-22, 2023-24 and the Secretary of the Chargola Gaon Panchayat had again submitted the action plan for the years involved with the approval of the Gram Sabha on 04-06-2024. It is further submitted by the respondent that the action plan was submitted strictly in accordance with the guidelines holding the field in the matter. 4. During the course of the hearing of the present matter, this Court had required the District Commissioner, Sribhumi, to place on record the status of implementation of the action plan for the years involved. Accordingly, the jurisdictional District Commissioner, had vide communication dated 30-08-2024, placed before this Court the fact that the action plan as approved were executed by the Chargola Gaon Panchayat for the financial years 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24. The communication dated 13-08-2025 along with the enclosures, thereto, were directed to be furnished to Mr. J.M.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and the matter was fixed today for further consideration. 5. Mr. J.M.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the schemes projected to have been executed for the financial years involved, are modified schemes and such modification of the schemes were so done without the approval of the Page No.# 4/9 Gram Sabha. 6. The said contention is disputed by Mr. S. Dutta, learned standing counsel, P&RD Department, who submits that the schemes which have been executed during the financial years, in question, are schemes which had the approval of the Gram Sabha and the said position is also reflected in the affidavit filed by the respondents. 7. The rival claims of the parties to the proceeding, bring to the forefront that the grants as received from the 15th Finance Commission (both tied and untied) for the years involved were utilised for implementation of various schemes in the Chargola Gaon Panchayat jurisdiction. In the event it is the case of the petitioner that the schemes were implemented by not following the procedure mandated for the same, the petitioner is to invoke the appropriate proceeding against the misuse of powers by the authorities empowered for implementation of schemes as per grants made by the 15th Finance Commission. 8. The respondents in the present scheme having made categorical contentions to the effect that the scheme executed for the financial years involved, out of the grant received by the Chargola Gaon Panchayat, pursuant to the recommendation of the 15th Finance Commission being the schemes prepared with the approval of the Gram Sabha, the petitioner not having brought on record any material to counter said contention raised in the matter by the respondent authorities, this Court would not be in a position to adjudicate upon such disputed questions of facts, basing on the affidavits filed by the parties. Further, on a perusal of the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ Page No.# 5/9 petition, the alleged acts which the petitioner has highlighted, therein, are essentially acts of misuse of power, corruption and embezzlement, which fall within the definition of statutory offence in the erstwhile Penal Code of 1860 and now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short “BNS”), or are acts of criminal misconduct under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 9. Law is well settled that where there is a statutory remedy available to any aggrieved person for seeking investigation into any offence, by approaching the appropriate authority for investigation, the Courts should be slow in passing orders for investigation by the State police or by the Central Agency. 10. A three-Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kunga Nima Lepcha & Ors. Vs. State of Sikkim & Ors., (2010) 4 SCC 513, while dealing with a PIL petition, wherein the petitioners therein had sought for a direction for launching an investigation by the Central Agency, has refused to issue such direction by observing as under: “13. However, the remedies evolved by way of writ jurisdiction are of an extraordinary nature. They cannot be granted as a matter of due course to provide redressal in situations where statutory remedies are available. It is quite evident that the onus is on the petitioners to demonstrate a specific violation of any of the fundamental rights in order to seek relief under writ jurisdiction. 14. In the present petition, the petitioners have made a rather vague argument that the alleged acts of corruption on part of Shri Pawan Chamling amount to an infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We do not find any merit in this assertion because the guarantee of ‘equal protection before the law’ or ‘equality before the law’ is violated if there is an unreasonable discrimination between two or more individuals or between two or more classes of persons. Clearly, the alleged acts of misappropriation from the public exchequer cannot be automatically equated with a violation of the guarantee of ‘equal protection before the law’. 15. Furthermore, we must emphasise the fact that the alleged acts can easily come within the ambit of statutory offences such as those of ‘possession of assets Page No.# 6/9 disproportionate to known sources of income’ as well as ‘criminal misconduct’ under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . The onus of launching an investigation into such matters is clearly on the investigating agencies such as the State Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) among others. It is not proper for this Court to give directions for initiating such an investigation under its writ jurisdiction. 16. While it is true that in the past, the Supreme Court of India as well as the various High Courts have indeed granted remedies relating to investigations in criminal cases, we must make a careful note of the petitioners' prayer in the present case. In the past, writ jurisdiction has been used to monitor the progress of ongoing investigations or to transfer ongoing investigations from one investigating agency to another. Such directions have been given when a specific violation of fundamental rights is shown, which could be the consequence of apathy or partiality on the part of investigating agencies among other reasons. In some cases, judicial intervention by way of writ jurisdiction is warranted on account of obstructions to the investigation process such as material threats to witnesses, the destruction of evidence or undue pressure from powerful interests. In all of these circumstances, the writ court can only play a corrective role to ensure that the integrity of the investigation is not compromised. However, it is not viable for a writ court to order the initiation of an investigation. That function clearly lies in the domain of the executive and it is up to the investigating agencies themselves to decide whether the material produced before them provides a sufficient basis to launch an investigation. 17. It must also be borne in mind that there are provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure which empower the courts of first instance to exercise a certain degree of control over ongoing investigations. The scope for intervention by the trial court is hence controlled by statutory provisions and it is not advisable for the writ courts to interfere with criminal investigations in the absence of specific standards for the same. 18. Hence it is our conclusion that the petitioners' prayer cannot be granted. This Court cannot sit in judgment over whether investigations should be launched against politicians for alleged acts of corruption. The Supreme Court of India functions as a constitutional court as well as the highest appellate court in the country. If the Supreme Court gives direction for prosecution, it would cause serious prejudice to the accused, as the direction of this Court may have far- reaching persuasive effect on the court which may ultimately try the accused. It is always open to the petitioners to approach the investigative agencies directly with the incriminating materials and it is for the investigative agencies to decide on the further course of action. While we can appreciate the general claim that the efforts to uncover the alleged acts of corruption may be obstructed by entrenched interests, in this particular case the petitioners would be well advised to rely on the statutory remedies. It is only on the exhaustion of ordinary remedies that perhaps a proceeding can be brought before a writ court and in any case the High Court of Page No.# 7/9 Sikkim would be a far more appropriate forum for examining the allegations made in the present petition. 19. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.” 11. Recently, relying on the above referred decision in Kunga Nima Lepcha (Supra), a three-Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Jharkhand Vs. Shiv Shankar Sharma & Ors., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1541, has declared a PIL petition pending in the Jharkhand High Court, as not maintainable, while observing as under: “12. This Court in Kunga Nima Lepcha Vs. State of Sikkim (2010) 4 SCC 513 under similar circumstances has held that a writ court is not an appropriate forum for seeking an initiation of such an investigation. A reference to the facts of Kunga Nima Lepcha (supra) would be relevant for our purposes. In the above case, a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed directly before this Court where the petitioner had alleged that the incumbent Chief Minister of the State of Sikkim (impleaded respondent No.2) had misused his public office and had amassed assets disproportionate to his known source of income. It was also alleged that the Chief Minister has misappropriated a large volume of public money at the cost of Government of India and the Government of Sikkim. Thus, the relief sought by the petitioner was for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the CBI to investigate the allegations that have been made against the Chief Minister. This Court declined to intervene in the matter holding that a constitutional court is not a forum to seek redressal of this nature. The remedies evolved by way of writ jurisdiction are of extraordinary nature and reliefs cannot be granted as a matter of due course, where the statutory remedies are available to the petitioner. ……………. 13. This Court, thus declined to interfere in the matter holding that the petitioner must approach the investigating agencies directly with the incriminating material and then it is for the investigating agencies to decide on the further course of action. Although an apprehension was raised by this Court that it is possible that the efforts of the petitioner to uncover alleged corruption may be obstructed by entrenched interests, yet statutory remedies available to the petitioner must be first exhausted and only thereafter can he approach the High Court. In the present case no such effort has been made by the respondent (i.e., the petitioner in the PIL) to approach the statutory authorities in any manner whatsoever. The fundamental requirement for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is that the petitioner must have sought such a relief before the appropriate authority and only when it is denied the Court can be approached for a writ a Page No.# 8/9 mandamus. This principle cannot be ignored merely because this Court is dealing with a Public Interest Litigation. With regard to the present Public Interest Litigations before us, it is an admitted fact that the respondent has not taken any steps in approaching the statutory authorities or made any effort in the registration of an FIR.” 12. In view of the above settled proposition of law, this Court is of the considered view that the appropriate course for the petitioner would be to file a complaint before the competent criminal Court, in respect of the alleged actions of misuse of power and/ or embezzlement and misappropriation of Government fund by the respondents, or may approach the concerned authorities of the State, with relevant materials, requesting for conducting enquiry in the matter. Accordingly, the present writ petition would not mandate further consideration. 13 In view of the above discussions, the present writ petition stands closed, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent criminal court with an appropriate application and/ or approach the competent authority of the Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, by disclosing relevant materials, seeking action against the erring officials/ persons. It is further provided that in the event of such approach being made by the petitioner, the application be considered by the concerned court/ authority strictly in accordance with law. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Page No.# 9/9 Comparing Assistant