27.08.2026 Item No.3 Court No.12 (Sandip/gc) MAT 1406 of 2026 CAN 1 of 2026 Dr. Manoj Kumar Chakraborty & Ors. Vs. Dr. Shaligram Shukla & Ors. Mr. Subir Sanyal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ratul Biswas, Mr. Shoham Sanyal, Mr. Sourojit Mukherjee …for the Appellants. Mr. Kallol Basu, Mr. Suman Banerjee …for the Writ Petitioner/Respondent No.1. Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty, Ms. Anamika Pandey …for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5. Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta, Ld. AGP, Mr. Niladri Saha …for the State. 1. The appeal arises out of an order dated August 18, 2026, passed in W.P.A. 16565 of 2026. 2. By the order impugned, the learned Court directed that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Anti- Corruption Branch, 14th & 15th Floor, 2nd MSO Building, 235/4, A.J.C. Bose Road, Nizam Palace, Kolkata –20 to be added as a respondent in the writ petition and the notice be served upon the CBI. CBI was further directed to submit a report with regard to action taken on the basis of the report of the Chief Vigilance Officer, dated October 28, 2024. 3. The grounds on which this appeal has been filed are as follows :- (a) The letter of the Chief Vigilance Officer dated October 28, 2024 was furnished before His Lordship in a sealed cover without claiming the same to be a privileged document. The court directed that CBI was a necessary respondent, on the basis of the report of the Chief Vigilance Officer dated October 28, 2024 submitted by the Union of India, without claiming any privilege. (b) The order violates the principles of natural justice, as the same was passed without allowing the appellants an opportunity to go through the contents of the report of the Chief Vigilance Officer. (c) The prayers in the writ petition were limited to the consideration of a complaint dated May 24, 2026, and for formation of an enquiry commission to investigate into the affairs of the Indian Science Congress Association in terms of the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. (d) During the pendency of an appeal of the union of India, with regard to the amendment of the memorandum of association and by-laws of the said society at the instance of the Union of India who were unsuccessful in getting the said 2 amended by-laws and memorandum of association implemented, the respondent no. 5 could not have taken any steps whatsoever, nor did he have the authority to participate in the proceedings. 4. According to Mr. Sanyal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants, the learned Judge extended the scope of the writ petition only on the basis of the vigilance report. Directing the CBI to file a report was beyond the issues involved in the writ petition. He submits that CBI enquiry was an independent enquiry and the writ Court should not have granted a relief at the interim stage, beyond what was prayed for in the writ petition. 5. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 4 and 5, submits that the vigilance report was a confidential document. The action taken on the basis of the vigilance report was an independent proceeding. The appellants were not entitled to copies of those reports at this stage. Mr. Chakraborty further submits that the respondent no. 4 provides substantial fund to the association and has every right to investigate into the allegation of defalcation of funds. 6. Mr. Basu, learned Advocate for the writ petitioner submits that the Court can take note of subsequent events and thereby pass orders by moulding the 3 reliefs. That, this Bench without deciding on the prejudice caused to the appellants for the actions taken by the vigilance commission, should not entertain this intra-court appeal from an interim order. 7. Learned Advocate for the State respondents submits that on the basis of the complaint received from the writ petitioner, steps under Section 23 have been taken and a reply has been called for from the Indian Science Congress Association. 8. Learned Advocate for the CBI submits that an enquiry is in process. 9. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties, we deem it prudent to refer to the prayers in the writ petition:- A. A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus directing and/or commanding the respondent authorities concerned and/or their men, servants, agents and/or assigns particularly the respondent No. 1 to forthwith consider the complaint letter of the petitioner dated 24.05.2026; B. A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus directing and/or commanding the respondent authorities concerned and/or their men, servants, agents and/or assigns to forthwith appoint a Commission for Enquiry so as to investigate into the affairs of the Indian Science Congress Association, a registered Society (Registration No. 21093/139 of 1953- 4 54), having its registered office at 14, Dr. Biresh Guha Street, Kolkata 700017 in terms of Section 23 of the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961; C. A Writ of and/or in the nature Certiorari directing and/or of commanding the respondent authorities concerned and/or their men, servants, agents and/or assigns certify and produce before this Hon'ble court all records pertaining to the case so that conscionable justice may be administered after perusal of the same; D. Rule NISI in terms of prayer (A) D. to (C) above; E. Mandatory injunction directing the respondent authorities concerned to appoint an Administrator to look after and manage the affairs of the Indian Science Congress Association a registered society (Registration No. 21093/139 of 1953-54) till disposal of the writ petition; 10. The writ petitioner is a life member of the Association and he approached the Secretary, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India alleging that persons concerned with the running of the said Association were misusing their authority, creating a coterie of people and had adopted brazen corrupt practices. A request was made for an enquiry by an independent authority, and initiation of criminal proceedings against such persons. 5 11. In our, prima facie, view the Indian Science Congress Association is an autonomous body and such autonomy has been recognized by the Central Government as also the Department of Science and Technology. The provisions of the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961, governs the field. 12. Substantial amount of money is given to the Association by the Department of Science and Technology and in our, prima facie, view, the utilization and mis-utilization of such funds can be looked into by the Department of Science and Technology. 13. Under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961, Section 22 empowers the Registrar to call for information and explanation with regard to any allegation regarding the conduct of the affairs of the company and Section 23 empowers the State Government to appoint a Commissioner for enquiry or for investigation into allegations. 14. The member wanted a commission of enquiry under Section 23. 15. The observations of His Lordship that the Department of Science and Technology had referred the matter to CBI, is a factual one. We do not join issue on this. 6 16. However, the problem arises because His Lordship directed the CBI to be added as a respondent and further directed the CBI to file a report. This, in our, prima facie, view expands the scope of the writ petition. Asking the CBI to file a report before the writ court without either pleadings or prayer, was not proper. 17. We are not inclined to make any observation on the actions of the CBI or the vigilance. Whether the CBI will act on the report of the vigilance commission or not, is entirely upto them. It is an admitted position that the Central Government had imposed certain amendments in the Memorandum of Association and the byelaws of the society. The same had been set aside by a learned Single Judge and the appeal therefrom is being heard. Thus, the authority of the Central Government over affairs of the society is limited. 18. Although, Mr. Basu is correct in making a submission that a writ court can expand the scope by taking note of subsequent events, but, in our opinion, unless the subsequent events were brought on record either by amendment or by a supplementary affidavit and the appellants were given an opportunity to deal with the same, the direction to implead the CBI and direct the CBI to 7 file a report at the interim stage, cannot be sustained. 19. Under such circumstances, the order impugned is modified to the extent that paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order impugned be deleted. 20. With regard to ground no.31, we hold that the said ground has not been accepted by us and the same shall be deemed to be deleted from the memorandum of appeal. 21. Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are disposed of. 22. This order is based on the records available before us and those are undisputed. The factual issues involved have not been gone into and are left open, to be decided by the learned Single Judge. 23. The proceedings initiated by the State Government will continue on its own merits. 24. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 25. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking. (Shampa Sarkar, J.) (Arjun Ray Mukherjee, J.) 8