Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040013922024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : PIL/17/2024 Mannang Lego Son of Late Marku Lego, resident of Village Tundut, New Lilang, PO Mariyang, Upper Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 9 ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Water Resources Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Secretary (Vigilance) Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 4:The Chief Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Public Works Department (CSQ) Nirman Bhawan 2nd Floor O Point Tinali PWD Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh 791111 5:The Superintendent of Police Age: 0 Page No.# 2/7 Occupation : Special Investigation Cell Civil Secretariat Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. 6:The Superintending Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Boleng Civil Circle Yingkiong Division Public Works Department Yingkiong Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 7:The Superintending Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Water Resources Department Daporijo Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 8:The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Yingkiong Division Water Resource Department Yingkiong Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 9:M/s SS Enterprsei Age: 0 Occupation : enlisted Class V Contractor C/o Superintending Engineer PWD Boleng Circle Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 10:Gonong Pertin Age: 0 Occupation : Executive Engineer Water Resources Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Page No.# 3/7 Seppa Division Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. M. Khataniar, Advocate. (through video-conferencing) Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. N. Ratan, Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE 29.04.2025 (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ) This PIL petition is filed by the petitioner contending that the Officers of the respondent Water Resource Department, who have been made as respondents in this PIL petition, are involved in siphoning and misappropriation of Government funds to the tune of Rs.1,44,80,000/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Four Lakh Eighty Thousand) and caused a huge loss to the public exchequer on account of various irregularities committed in the works sanctioned under various schemes. It is stated in the petition that on a complaint filed by the petitioner though disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the alleged Officer, who are involved in misappropriation of public money, but no criminal case has been registered till date by the Vigilance Department or by any other person at the instance of the State. 2. In the PIL petition, it is prayed that a direction be issued to the concerned authorities to immediately register a case in the SIC Vigilance for a free and fair investigation or in the alternative form, the respondents be directed Page No.# 4/7 to constitute an independent investigation team and cause an enquiry and to file an independent report so as to book the culprits and recover the amounts paid from the public funds in violation of the Arunachal Pradesh District Based Entrepreneurs and Professionals (Incentives, Development and Promotional) Rules, 2015 on the basis of the enquiry report being SIC (Vig.) P.S. Enquiry No.18/2020. 3. Having gone through the contents of the PIL petition and the material available on record as well as after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that all alleged acts, which the petitioner has highlighted in this PIL petition are essentially acts of corruption, and embezzlement, which fall within the definition of statutory offence under the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC) and now the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short, “BNS”), or, are acts of criminal misconduct under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. Law is well settled that where there is statutory remedy is available to any aggrieved person, seeking investigation to any offence, to approach the appropriate authority for investigation into the offence, the Courts should be slow in passing orders for investigation by the State police or by the Central Agency. 5. A three-Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kunga Nima Lepcha & Ors. -Vs- State of Sikkim & Ors., reported in (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: Page No.# 5/7 “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 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 Page No.# 6/7 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 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.” (Emphasis Supplied) 6. 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 v. 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 Page No.# 7/7 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 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.” 7. In view of the above settled proposition of law, we are of the view that the appropriate course for the petitioner would be to file a complaint in the competent criminal Court in respect of the alleged actions of embezzlement and misappropriation of Government funds by the respondents, or may approach the authorities concerned under the State, or the Central Government, for conducting investigation based on the material relied upon by them. 8. With these observations, this PIL petition stands disposed of. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant