JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks direction to register an FIR against respondent no.4 under The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and IPC and to investigate the offence in accordance with law and further prays that respondent no.1 be directed to submit periodic status reports of investigation before this Court. Further prayer made is that respondent no.2 the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Department be directed to reassess the income tax details of respondent no.4 and his family members during the period he served as Public Servant. Further direction was also sought that respondent No.3, the Enforcement Directorate be directed to lodge an ECIR and investigate offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent no.4 contested the elections for 3 consecutive terms commencing from the years 2008, 2013 and 2018 respectively and served as Public Servant as Chief Minister of State and played key role in State governance. It is submitted that during the intervening period of subsequent years, there had been increase in assets of respondent no.4 and his associates, which is disproportionate to his/their known sources of income. Referring to the pleading, he would submit that the comparative chart which was filed before the election officer i.e., election-affidavit would show that many-fold increase in the assets have been shown for three consecutive years. It is further submitted that the petitioner knocked the doors of various central agencies, but all of them have shirked their responsibilities and lastly the Economic Offences Wing of the State to which the said complaint was forwarded came out with a reply that the particulars cannot be unfolded as the applications are pending.

2 (b) Counsel further submits that in order to suppress the petitioner’s pursuance against respondent no.4, the premises of petitioner was raided by Enforcement Directorate during the pendency of this petition and the comparison of the election-affidavits and the assets would show that the offence is committed by respondent no.4 under The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He would further submit that respondent no.4 who came out with a reply in this petition does not have a locus-standi to resist the adjudication of this petition inasmuch as this Court in W.P(Cr). No. 121/2017 (Dhananjay Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) has categorically stated that the prospective accused has no right of hearing before registration of FIR and investigation by the Police Officer or before the Court, including the writ court. He would further submit that the nature of evidence collected against respondent no.4 is based on election-affidavits which are placed on record and there exists no controverted facts which would lead to show that by simple examination of comparative affidavits, many-fold increase in income and assets of respondent no.4 was found while he was in public office thereby corruption is writ large.

2(c) He further submits that the Income Tax Authorities i.e., Respondent no.2 had issued notices under the Income Tax Act and in reply filed by them, it was stated that nothing was found but the covering-memo which is placed on record before this Court would show that certain investigation was going on, which was not brought to the notice of this Court. Thus the circumstances lead to call for an investigation by the CBI and ED both. He would further submit that since evidently the offence has been made-out by bare comparison of the election-affidavits, this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution can direct registration of FIR against Respondent No.4.

3. He placed reliance in Lok Prahari through its General Secretary S.N. Shukla Versus Union of India (2018) 4 SCC 699 to submit that the Court can look into the veracity of the election-affidavits and can very well direct inv