Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Heard Mr. P Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. Also heard Mr. J Roy, learned counsel for respondent No.6, Mr. S Borthakur, learned counsel for respondent No.11, Mr. H Gupta, learned Central Govt. Counsel and Mr. PN Choudhury, learned Senior Retainer Counsel, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

2. None has appeared for respondent Nos. 7 to 10 despite service of notice.

3. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents, more particularly, respondent Nos.1 to 5 to hand over investigation of Dispur PS Case No.1786/2014, registered under sections 120B/306 IPC to the CBI for investigation.

4. Only essential facts necessary for disposal of the present writ petition are referred to hereunder.

5. Respondent No.7 is a co-educational school, situated at Darjeeling. It is stated that most of the students of the school are from Thailand and Bangladesh, though students from India are also present in significant numbers in the school. Petitioner's daughter, Debahuti Talukdar was enrolled in respondent No.7 school in Class-VIII in April, 2014. It is stated that the hostel where the petitioner's daughter was a boarder used to serve beef to the students without informing them about service of such food item. It is stated that petitioner's daughter had consumed beef on several occasions without knowing that she was being served beef in the meal.

6. When the petitioner's daughter became aware of the content of the meat being served, she protested in the month of May, 2014. Petitioner's daughter informed the petitioner about serving of beef in the hostel and on advice of the petitioner, she started taking her meal outside the campus. When the petitioner took up the matter with the hostel warden i.e., respondent No.9, the latter became very angry and brushed aside his objection. Petitioner had also contacted respondent No.9 over telephone and had requested him not to serve food items which were not acceptable to her daughter. It is stated that respondent Nos.8, 9 & 10 did not at all approved the objection raised by the petitioner's daughter and, more particularly, her consumption of food outside the hostel.

7. It is also stated that petitioner's daughter developed a strained relationship with a Thai girl, Ms. Boma, another hostel boarder because of rivalry in the sporting arena within the school. After summer vacation when the petitioner's daughter had come back home to Guwahati, she returned to the school along with the petitioner, who made arrangement of food for his daughter outside the respondent No.7 school.

8. According to the petitioner, a false complaint was engineered by the school authority, more particularly, by respondent No.9 alleging that petitioner's daughter had stolen a mobile phone of the Thai girl, Ms. Boma. According to the petitioner, the mobile phone that his daughter was using was given by him to her after he had purchased it from Seoul, South Korea where petitioner had gone to participate in a Trade Fair. On 22.07.2014, respondent No.9 rang up the petitioner and asked him to take back his daughter from the school otherwise petitioner was told that the school authorities would have to expel her from the school on allegation of theft of mobile phone.

9. In view of aforesaid development, petitioner left for Darjeeling on 24.07.2014 and met respondent No.8 i.e., the Principal of the school. When he objected about serving of beef to the students, respondent No.8 told the petitioner that no student had any objection to serving of beef in the meal in the hostel. On the other hand, right to include beef in the school menu was insisted upon since the school was a minority institution. Regarding theft of the mobile phone, petitioner submitted a first information dated 25.07.2014 before the Sadar Police Station, Darjeeling, following which, a GD entry was made. On the o