S. N. Jha, J.

1. These writ petitions have been fifed in public interest by individual citizens and organisations of different complexions, in substance seeking direction, to the Central bureau of Investigation (CB enquire and investigate the caslating to fraudulent excess. eitures/drawals in the Animal-Husbandry department o Government.

2. The crux of the petitioners case is the officers of the Animal Husbandry department-bt the district and the Secretariat levels-in collusion. with teasury Officers officershe Finance Department at the secretariat leveh the blessings and support of the Government, systcaliy drew huge sums of money in excess ofgrant, i. e. the financial sanction against fake allotment ordvouchers; etc. According the petitioners, because of the involv and bias of the high-ups, fair investigation into-what has come known as Animal Husbandry Scam instate, is not possible.

3. Thte does not deny that there have been excess drawalr fraudulent in nature. In paragraph 43 of the counter-affidavit in C. W. J. C. No.602 of 1996 (R) it has been stated, "as a matter of fact, it is a case of fraud and forgery and the money fraudulently drawn from the consolidated fund of the State". According to the State, while it was aware of the excess drawals, which is an usual phenomenon in the State Financing, it had no knowledge that the drawals were fraudulent in nature until January 1996. And when the fraud came to light prompt action was taken by filing criminal cases, instituting administrative enquiry and so on.

4. It would be appropriate at this stage to notice the Constitutional provisions relating to State Financing applicable to the States. The provisions which require to be noticed for the purpose of these cases are contained in Articles 202 to 206, 266 and 267. Article 202 provides for laying down of a statement of the estimated receipts and expenditure, called Annual Financial statement, in common parlance known as the Budget, in respect of every financial year, before the Houses of the state Legislature. Article 203 provides that estimates in respect of non-charged expenditure, i. e. items other than those mentioned in Article 202 (3), shall be submitted in the form of demands in the Legislative Assembly. After the Assembly gives its assent to the estimates, that is to say, the grants are made under Article 203. Appropriation Bill is introduced under article 204 for the appropriation of money out of the consolidated fund of the State to meet the grants (with respect of non-charged expenditure)and the charged expenditure, i. e. Expenditure charged on the consolidated fund of the State under Article 202 (3 ). Article 205 lays down that if the amount authorised under the Appropriation Bill to be spent for a particular service for the current financial year is found to be insufficient for the purposes, of that year or when a need arises during the current financial year for supplementary or additional expenditure upon some new service not contemplated in the Annual Financial statement (Budget) for that year, or if the money spent on any service during a financial year exceeds the amount granted for that service, another statement showing the estimated amount of that expenditure is required to be presented to the Assembly. In that situation, the same procedure as contemplated by Articles 202 to 204 is required to be followed. Article 206 provides for vote of accounts and exceptional grants. Where a full-fledged annual statement cannot be presented, the Assembly is empowered to make a grant in advance in respect of estimated expenditure for a part of the financial year pending completion of the usual procedure for the voting of such grants and passing of appropriation bill in accordance with Articles 203 and 204. Similarly, the Assembly is empowered to make a grant to meet an unexpected demand when an account of the magnitude or the indefinite character of the service the demand cannot be stated with the details ordina