VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition to seek a writ of certiorari quashing the Regular Case RC AC-1 2015 A-0004 registered against them and two others under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'the PC Act') and Section 109 IPC by the respondent no. 1/CBI, and all actions taken in pursuance of the said Regular Case by the CBI.

2. Petitioner No.1 is a former Union Minister – and also the present Chief Minister of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner No.2 is his wife. They are alleged to have acquired assets disproportionate to their known sources of income during the tenure of petitioner no.1 as a Union Minister of State from 28.05.2009 to 18.01.2011, and the Union Minister of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) from 19.01.2011 to 26.06.2012 in the Government of India i.e. from 28.05.2009 to 26.06.2012 (hereinafter ‘the Check Period’). The said Regular Case has been registered against them and two others, by the CBI on 23.09.2015 on the basis of a Preliminary Enquiry PE AC-1 2015 A 0002 registered on 17.06.2015.

3. The petitioners’ submissions are, primarily, twofold. Firstly, the petitioners submit that the CBI held a Preliminary Enquiry vide PE AC1 2012 A 0007 dated 19.10.2012 and closed it. The same is referred to as the First Preliminary Enquiry (First PE). The CBI, thereafter, started another Preliminary Enquiry allegedly on the same subject matter - registered as PE AC-1 2015 A0002 on 17.06.2015, referred to as the Second Preliminary Enquiry (Second PE). On the basis of the Second PE, the aforesaid Regular Case is stated to have been registered. The petitioners submit that the CBI did not have the jurisdiction to register and hold a Second PE when the First PE on the same facts, and into the same allegations, had already been conducted and closed. Secondly, the submission of the petitioners is that the CBI does not have the jurisdiction to investigate the aforesaid Regular Case under the PC Act in the State of Himachal Pradesh, without obtaining permission of the State Government of that State under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (hereinafter ‘the DSPE Act’) which, according to them, has not been obtained.

4. This petition was initially filed as Civil Writ Petition i.e. C.W.P. No. 4063 of 2015 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh seeking the following substantive reliefs:

"(i) Issue a direction thereby summoning the record of Respondent. 1 relating to Preliminary Enquiry dated 17.6.2015 being PE AC-1 2015 A 0002;

(ii) Issue a direction thereby summoning the record of the Respondent. 1 relating to RC AC 1 2005 A0004;

(iii) That after perusing the record relating to the aforesaid Preliminary Enquiry and the Regular Case, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to Issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper thereby quashing the RCAC-1 2015 A-0004 under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 109 IPC was registered by the CBI dated 23.09.2015 and all the actions taken in pursuance of the said Regular Case including but not limiting to the search warrants, seizure memos and all investigation done by Respondent. 1."

5. The Himachal Pradesh High Court on the first date of hearing itself, while granting time to the respondents to file their reply, vide order dated 1.10.2015 framed the following questions for determination in this petition:

“1. Whether cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court qua FIR No. RCAC-1 2015 A-004 registered on 23.9.2015, more particularly, in view of Sr. No. 5 read in conjunction with paras 4, 5 and 6 of the FIR?

2. Whether there could be second preliminary inquiry after the closure of earlier preliminary inquiry purportedly a