IMPORTANT POINT
The court has the jurisdiction to entertain petitions with a public law element, and inadequate investigation justifies transfer to a central agency.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed against two orders of the same learned Single Judge. The writ petition from which the appeal arises, bearing WPA No. 2103 of 2023, was filed by eleven (11) writ petitioners, who are respondents herein, alleging a deep-rooted financial scam. It was alleged that the writ petitioners are members of the Alipurduar Mohila Samabay Rindan Samity Limited and had invested money in the said Society. However, subsequently, the petitioners were swindled, upon which the petitioners lodged complaints with the police, resulting in registration of First Information Report (FIR) and initiation of a criminal case. The petitioners allege that despite the investigation having been handed over to the CID of the State from the police authority, no substantial progress took place in the investigation, apparently insinuating that the CID was hand-in-glove with the accused persons.

2. Upon such writ petition being filed, the learned Single Judge, vide order dated August 24, 2023, had directed the investigation to be handed over from the CID to the CBI of the Eastern Region/Zone and also the Enforcement Directorate (ED) of the Eastern Zone.

3. A recall application was taken out on behalf of the CID which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated September 15, 2023 with a cost of Rs. 5 lakh to be paid by the CID, West Bengal to the High Court Legal Services Authority.

4. Challenging both the said orders, the present appeal has been preferred.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State/appellant argues that the learned Single Judge had no jurisdiction to pass the orders impugned herein, since the writ petition was in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and the learned Single Judge did not have the determination to take up the same. The determination to take up PILs lies with the Division Bench of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice and, as such, the impugned orders are without jurisdiction.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor places heavy reliance on the averments made in the writ petition and contends that the crux of the allegations is that there is public interest involved, since several innocent citizens of Alipurduar are involved. Even the primary relief sought is investigation by a Central Agency.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor next argues that after filing of charge-sheet, the writ court loses its jurisdiction. It is argued that under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appropriate authority is the jurisdictional magistrate, who is to be approached for reopening an investigation, seeking direction of reinvestigation or de novo investigation. The said forum has been bypassed by the writ court, it is argued, which is de hors its jurisdiction and in contravention of law.

8. Thirdly, it is argued that nowhere in the impugned orders and/or the writ petition has it been disclosed that the CID was unable to carry out the investigation property or that there was any serious flaw in the investigation of the CID.

9. Learned counsel places reliance on the report and the supplementary report filed by the CID before the learned Single Judge to argue that extensive investigation has already been carried out by the CID and a charge-sheet has been filed. Thus, it is argued that the impugned orders are perverse.

10. It is further argued that insofar as the second impugned order dated September 15, 2023 is concerned, the same is also without jurisdiction, since the original records are lying with the trial court and it was not for the CID to hand over the records.

11. In fact, it is submitted that the CBI has, in the meantime, taken photocopies of the records lying with the Public Prosecutor for the purpose of complying with the impugned orders.

12. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor places reliance on State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, reported at (2010) 3 SCC 571, for the proposition tha