2026:JHHC:20361-DB -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (PIL) No. 254 of 2022 Ramchandra Keshari, aged about 85 years, S/o-Late Sita Ram Keshari, R/o -Vill-Chechariya, Nagar Uttari, Ward No. 8, P.O. & P.S.-Nagar Uttari, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand. … … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Principal Secretary to Urban Development Department, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Joint Secretary Urban Development & Housing Department Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Director Central Bureau of Investigation, Kutchery Road, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 5. The Executive Officer Shri Banshidhar Nagar, Nagar Panchayat, P.O. & P.S.-Nagar Uttari, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand. 6. Amit Kumar, The Executive Officer, Banshidhar Nagar Panchayat, Nagar Uttari, Garhwa, P.O. & P.S.-Nagar Uttari, District-Garhwa. Jharkhand. 7. The Deputy Commissioner Garhwa, P.O. & P.S.-Garhwa, District- Garhwa, Jharkhand. 8. Rajdev Singh, Chief Engineer, Technical Wing Cabinet Vigilance Department, Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.-Garhwa, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand. 9. Kaushal Kr. Singh, Junior Engineer, Shri Banshidhar Nagar, Nagar Panchayat, P.O. & P.S.-Nagar Uttari, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand. 10. Rajeev Kumar, Ranjan, Junior Engineer, Shri Banshidhar Nagar, Nagar Panchayat, P.O. & P.S.-Nagar Uttari, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand. 11. Sashi Kr. Gupta, Assistant Engineer, Shri Banshidhar Nagar, Nagar Panchayat, P.O. & P.S.-Nagar Uttari, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand. 12. Md. Aftab Alam, Executive Engineer, Shri Banshidhar Nagar, Nagar Panchayat, P.O. & P.S.-Nagar Uttari, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand. … … … Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate Mrs. Niteshwari Kumari, Advocate For the State: Mr. Vibhor Mayank, A.C. to A.G. --------- 09/Dated: 09.07.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This purported Public Interest Litigation seeks the following reliefs: 2026:JHHC:20361-DB -2- “A. For the direction upon the Respondent No. 4 to investigate the purchase of Solar Penal, mask light & fogging machine in the Shri Banshidhar Nagar Panchayat Nagar-Uttari, Garhwa. As because the procedure has not be followed, and Items as mentioned here has been purchased at exorbitant rate. B. For the direction upon the respondent to submit the enquiry team Constituted by Urban Secretary headed by Rajdev Singh (a corrupt engineer) who has not enquired about the allegation level by the petitioner and as per his request enquiry team constructed by the Urban Development Secretary. C. For the direction upon the respondents to initiate proceeding against the private respondents who are involved in purchase of different items in Shri Banshidhar Nagar Panchayat. D. For any other of the relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts of this case.” 3. Since the respondents challenged the petitioner's credentials to maintain a Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit, in which he has stated that he is associated with several social activities; that he was a Cabinet Minister in the State of Jharkhand between 2000 and 2005; that he is an RTI activist; and that he is aged 80 years but still works for the poor. Along with this affidavit, he has annexed a document in which he has written about himself on the letterhead of a political party. 4. Considering the above, while some political interest cannot be ruled out, we do not wish to non-suit the petitioner on that ground. 5. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit filed by Mr Atul Kumar, the Under Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand, it is stated that departmental proceedings were conducted against the 6th respondent, Mr. Amit Kumar, the then Executive Engineer of Shri Banshidhar Nagar, 2026:JHHC:20361-DB -3- Nagar Panchayat, Garhwa. In such departmental proceedings, some charges were held as proved against the said official and a penalty of withholding of two increments with non-cumulative effect has already been imposed upon this officer. 6. The counter affidavits filed by the other respondents state that the tender process was followed for the purchase of solar panels, mask lights and a fogging machine, and that this is not a case of purchase at exorbitant rates. At the behest of the petitioner, who has mainly made allegations and relied upon certain news items published in local newspapers, a roving enquiry into the entire tender process or into whether there was any corruption as alleged by the petitioner cannot be undertaken by this Court. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner neither filed any F.I.R. nor did he approach the Lokayukta with his complaint. Some complaints were made to the Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department. The record also shows that the respondents have not ignored what they perceive, i.e., the misdoings by the 6th respondent. A departmental proceeding has already been initiated against the 6th respondent, and a penalty has also been imposed on the 6th respondent. 8. An Enquiry Team was also constituted by the Urban Secretary, and though the petitioner has described the Urban Secretary as a corrupt officer, ultimately the petitioner relies upon this report of the Enquiry Team constituted by the Urban Secretary. It is based upon such a report that departmental proceedings were initiated against the 6th respondent. 9. The petitioner has demanded investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. However, this relief was not pressed. In any event, such demands cannot be lightly made and the petitioner cannot directly approach this Court seeking a CBI enquiry without even filing any 2026:JHHC:20361-DB -4- complaints before the appropriate authorities and without even pleading anything about the circumstances in which such an enquiry is being sought. 10. With regard to the demand for a CBI investigation, we refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Legislative Council, U.P., Lucknow and others v. Sushil Kumar and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2254, wherein it is held that whilst the High Courts possess power under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct such investigations, that power is not unfettered. The Court must independently assess the material on record and be satisfied that a prima facie case warranting such an investigation is made out. A direction for a CBI investigation cannot be issued merely based on allegations made by a party. 11. In Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. and others v. Sahngoo Ram Arya and another, (2002) 5 SCC 521, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the power to direct an enquiry by the CBI can be exercised by a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution only when, after considering the material on record, the Court concludes that such material discloses a prima facie case calling for investigation by the CBI or any other similar agency. 12. In State of West Bengal and others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others (2010) 3 SCC 571, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a direction for investigation by the CBI constitutes an extraordinary remedy that must be exercised sparingly and cautiously, and only in exceptional circumstances. Such a course may be warranted when it becomes necessary to instill public confidence in the administration of justice, where the protection of a fundamental right so requires, or where circumstances give rise to a reasonable apprehension that the integrity of the investigative process stands compromised. 2026:JHHC:20361-DB -5- 13. None of the above principles or circumstances applies to the present case. Even upon independently assessing the material on record, which is itself scant and mostly consists of unverified press reports, we are satisfied that no case is made out for handing over the investigations to the CBI. Crucially, the State authorities have investigated the matter, and though the petitioner has made reckless allegations against the officials, ultimately even the petitioner relies upon the reports prepared by such officers. 14. Accordingly, for all the above reasons, we dispose of this petition without any order for costs. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 09, 2026 N.A.F.R. APK/VK Uploaded on 14.07.2026