Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010064212025 2025:GAU-AS:3669- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : PIL/19/2025 CHENI RAM KONWAR ALIAS CHENIRAM MELANG PRESIDENT ALL TIWA STUDENTS UNION, S/O- SRI DHIREN KONWAR, R/O- VILL- WABORI, PO MORIGAON, DIST-0 MORIGAON, PIN- 780015, ASSAM 2: BIMAN PRATIM DEKARAJA @BIMAN PRATIM MASERENG G.S ALL TIWA STUDENTS UNION S/O- KEHURAM DEKARAJA R/O- KHAIGARH BAGARIGURI NAGAON PIN-782103 ASSAM 3: BISWA DEV BORO PRESIDENT ALL ASSAM TRIBAL BELT BLOCK AND LAND PROTECTION COMMITTEE S/O- LALIT BORO R/O- 1 NO DUNGABORI MORIGAON PIN-782141 ASSAM 4: SANJEEV PATAR S/O- RAMESWAR PATAR R/O- SINDHISAR SONAIKUSHI MORIGAON PIN-782413 ASSAM Page No.# 2/8 5: BINDU BORDOLOI S/O- KAMESWAR BORDOLOI R/O- 398 NEAR ARMY CAMP PASCHIM NAGAON MORIGAON PIN-782410 ASSAM 6: PRAMOD SAGARA S/O- SURYA BORDOLOI R./O- KAMAR FA TENGRALANGSO VTC BAITHALANGSO KARBI ANGLONG PIN-782450 ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE CHIEF SECY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATAI- 781006, ASSAM 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782105 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782105 4:TIWA AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782105 5:JIBAN CHANDRA KONWAR PRESENTLY SERVING AS THE CEM TIWA AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782105 6:DEBANANDA DAS PRESENTLY SERVING AS THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TIWA AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782105 Page No.# 3/8 7:M/S SAPTARSHI INDUSTRIES HAVING ITS OFFICE AT H.NO-20 JB LANE JORPUKHURI (EAST) UZANBAZAR GUWAHATI -1 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 8:M/S VEDHA CONSTRUCTION HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 5-B ASTHA PLAZA G.S ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI -07 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 9:M/S B.K ENTERPRISE HAVING ITS OFFICE AT T.R PHOOKAN ROAD MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI -09 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM For the petitioners : Mr. D. Gogoi, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. N. Das, Jr. Govt. Advocate, Assam For respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 Mr. S. Neogi, Advocate For respondent Nos.4 & 6 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR 28-03-2025 (Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.) This PIL petition is filed by the petitioners praying for granting the following relief: “In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records and issue a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why: Page No.# 4/8 i. A writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued directing the respondent authorities to take immediate steps to cause an enquiry into the financial management and misconduct in the Tiwa Autonomous Council by procuring essential items such as bicycles, looms, yarn and power-pumps at highly inflated prices and/or; ii. A writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued directing the respondent authorities to initiate a criminal investigation into the misappropriation of public money in the Tiwa Autonomous Council by procuring essential items such as bicycles, looms, yarn and power-pumps at highly inflated prices and/or; iii. A writ in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued directing the respondent authorities to take immediate action on the representations submitted by the petitioners and/or to pass any other appropriate order or direction as to Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances so as to give full and complete relief to the petitioners.” 2. Having gone through the contents of the PIL petition and the material available on record, we are of the view that all acts, which the petitioners have 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, or, are acts of criminal misconduct under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. True, an investigation can be initiated either by the State police or by any Central Agency, such as CBI or Central Vigilance Commission etc., in relation to the said allegations, however, it is not the case of the petitioners that they have approached the appropriate authority for launching investigation into the above referred alleged incidences of corruption and/or embezzlement of money. It Page No.# 5/8 appears that the petitioners have directly approached this Court by way of filing this PIL petition. 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: “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 Page No.# 6/8 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 Page No.# 7/8 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 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 Page No.# 8/8 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 relief prayed for in this PIL petition cannot be granted to the petitioners. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain this PIL petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to approach the authorities concerned under the State, or the Central Government, or the competent Criminal Court for launching investigation into the alleged incidences of corruption and embezzlement of public money, based on the material relied upon by them. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant