A writ of prohibition is not a writ of right, and the court should be slow in interfering with investigations, especially when economic offences are suspected.

The prayer in the writ petition is to prohibit the respondents from continuing with the search and investigation with regard to the materials imported under the Import Licence No. K/0441852/XX/100/M/D.1.4 dated 30-7-1986.

2.It seems that the petitioner Firm is engaged in the manufacture and export of leather, having its administrative office at Madras and Works at Ambur, North Arcot District. In 1986-87 a licence was granted to the petitioner under the Advance Licence Scheme for their requirement of chemical inputs under Appendix 119 of the Import and Export Policy. When the consignments started arriving, it seems that certain proceedings were taken by the Customs Department and the petitioner has come up to this Court in W.P. No. 4433 of 1988 and obtained interim orders from this Court restraining the Department from proceeding with the investigation in the matter and also directing them to deliver back to the petitioner the goods and documents seized. It is alleged that the appeals filed by the Department against the interim orders were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. When the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports started proceedings and seized the goods in a godown directly, the petitioner again came up to this Court in W.P. No. 13141 of 1988 and obtained interim orders restraining that authority from proceeding further. At this juncture, it seems that the first respondent, through the second respondent, has taken up the investigation into the matter and is proceeding with the investigation at this stage, the petitioner has come up to this Court with the above prayer.

3.After hearing Mr. R. Venugopalan, learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit case in which a writ of prohibition should be issued. It is well settled that a writ of prohibition is not a writ of right. It cannot be disputed that the respondents have jurisdiction to investigate into the affairs of the petitioner firm. The contention of the petitioner that the respondents have got jurisdiction only within the Union Territory of Delhi is not acceptable. In my view, surely the respondents have got jurisdiction to investigate into the matter and find out the truth. Further, in public interest, I do not think that this Court should issue a writ of prohibition and stall matters which are against the interest of the country as a whole. Surely, when economic offences are suspected, it is open to the respondents to enquire into the matter to find out the truth. As and when the authorities taken any action on the basis of the investigation, there will be time enough for the petitioner to challenge the same. As such, the petitioner cannot seek the help of this Court and obtain a writ of prohibition to stop the authorities from conducting the investigation itself. I feel that this Court should be very slow in interfering with such investigations, especially when economic offences are suspected. The writ petition will stand dismissed.