The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the CBI has the authority to investigate in Railway areas within a state, even after the withdrawal of consent by the State Government, based on the initial extension of power by the Central Government and the federal structure recognized by the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - The petitioner is a director of a company named Mark Enclave Private Limited, which is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of coal. In the course of its business, the petitioner's company purchased coal from various organisations, including the Eastern Coalfield Limited (ECL).

2. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), respondent no.2 herein, started investigation on the basis of FIR No. RC 0102020A0022 dated November 27, 2020. As per the FIR, the suspected offence was criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust by public servants and criminal misconduct by public servants by dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriating the property entrusted to them or any property under their control as public servants or allowing other persons to do so. The FIR specified the place of occurrence of the offence as leasehold area of ECL under Kunustoria, Kajora area, District West Burdwan, corresponding Railway Sidings and other places. The petitioner was one of the accused persons named in the FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the FIR on several grounds. It is submitted that the consent given by the State of West Bengal under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1946 Act") on August 2, 1989, was withdrawn vide a subsequent Notification dated November 16, 2018 published in the Official Gazette. It is submitted that the extension of powers and jurisdiction of the CBI to any area (including Railway areas) in a State, granted by the Central Government under Section 5, is subject to consent of the concerned State Government under Section 6 of the 1946 Act. Thus, in view of the withdrawal of such consent by the State of West Bengal, the CBI had no authority to register FIR and conduct investigation pursuant to the same within West Bengal.

4. Secondly, it is argued, even it is assumed for argument's sake that Railway areas are exempt from the purview of the State's consent under Section 6, the FIR disclosed the place of occurrence primarily to be the ECL area pertaining to coal mines and could not occasion any investigation in Railway areas.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner's company has been engaged in legal purchase and sale of coal. Several documents, annexed to the writ petition, are relied on to indicate that the petitioner's company participated in legal e-auctions and made valid purchases of coal, obviating the scope of any illegal activity on the part of the petitioner on that score.

6. It is submitted that 'Railway area', as mentioned in Sections 5 and 6 of the 1946 Act, has not been defined in the said Act. As such, the withdrawal of consent by the State of West Bengal denuded the CBI of any authority to conduct investigation within the territory of West Bengal, including Railway areas.

7. It is further argued that the initial extension of jurisdiction by the Central Government, vide order dated February 18, 1963, only mentioned 'West Bengal', thus excluding Railway areas. For conferment of such power on the CBI in terms of Section 5 of the 1946 Act, it is argued, Railway areas, if intended to be covered, have to be specifically mentioned in the order of conferment of jurisdiction. In the absence of such mention in the original order of extension of powers, the CBI has no authority to continue their investigation on the basis of the impugned FIR.

8. Placing reliance on Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others, (1994) Supp2 SCC 116 , learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an order revoking consent under Section 6 of the 1946 Act can only have prospective operation. However, in the present case, the FIR was registered subsequent to the withdrawal of consent by the State of West Bengal and was thus illegal.

9. It is further argued that the place of occurrence, as mentioned in the FIR, is the leasehold area of the ECL, which does not fall within the