Court No. 8 08.08.2025 Item No.29 PA (Chamber)

WPA (P) No. 4 of 2023 Anikul Hoque VS The Union of India & Ors. Mr. Manojit Bhattacharyya Mr. Diptoraj Chakroborty …for the Petitioner Mr. Jahar Lal De, AGP Mr. Rudranil De …for the State Mr. Rivu Dutta …for Union of India

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respective parties.

2. The instant Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for the following relief(s):-

“a) A writ of in the nature of Certiorari directing the public respondents each one of them, their men, agents and assigns especially the Block Development Authority, The SDO authority and The District Magistrate Authority to transmit this Hon’ble Court all the records of the case so that conscionable justice may be arrived at by perusing the same;

b) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the public respondents each one of them, their men, agents and assigns especially the respondent Panchayet Pradhan to immediately withdraw herself from their respective posts immediately;

c) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus restraining the Panchayet Authority and the Block Development Authority from their respective post and designation so that no further financial irregularities take place.

d) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the public respondents, each one of them, their men, agents and assigns to cause a detailed investigation and/or audit whatsoever by any eligible independent neutral investigating agency into the matter, preferably the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and to file a report immediately.

e) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus directing the public respondents, each one of them, their men, agents and assingsn to cause a detailed investigation and/or audit whatsoever by any eligible independent and neutral investigating agency into the matter, especially about the source of income and other assesses, whatsoever of the respondent Gram Panchayat Pradhan and her companions and their family members and near ones, preferably the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and/or Income Tax (IT) Department and to file a report immediately.

f) Any other appropriate writ or writs, order or orders and/or direction or directions;

g) Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) above;

h) Interim order imposing a stay on the activities of the respondent BDO, Gram Panchayat Pradhan and his companions in their official capacity.

i) Interim order directing the respondents CBI, ED and CAG to cause preliminary enquiry in the matter and file a report of the same before the Hon’ble Court.

j) Ad-interim order in terms of prayers (h)

and (i) above;

k) Costs of and incidental to this applications;

l) Pass such further order or orders, direction or directions as your Lordship deem fit and proper.”

3. The main grievance in the instant writ petition is for conducting a detailed enquiry/investigation with regard to the financial irregularities and misappropriation of public funds against the Respondent No. 11, 12 & 13.

4. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner in the instant case is the present incumbent in the post of Pradhan in place and stead of Respondent No. 11. The issue involved herein thereby renders in fructuous but liberty is granted to the petitioner to take recourse to law before appropriate forum as provided under the statute.

5. The issue in cases where investigation is prayed for is no longer res integra.

6. The question cropped up before a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage & Ors. Reported at (2016) 6 SCC 277 as to whether the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be availed of if there exists inaction of Police in registering the FIR in relation to a cognizable offence. The Apex Court drawn the curtains on the said aspects in following words:

“2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., that if a person has a grievance