Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has brought forth this petition under the category Public Interest Litigation (PIL), seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the 8th respondent to take over the investigation of Crime No.16/2006 from the file of the 7th respondent and to file the final report within the time frame. 2. The affidavit in support of the petition is perused and also the materials produced by the learned Special Government Pleader. Counsel on either side are heard. 3. 2. The affidavit in support of the petition is perused and also the materials produced by the learned Special Government Pleader. Counsel on either side are heard. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he is representing 127 students who were affected and aggrieved by the cheating committed by the 5th and 6th respondents; that they have swindled lot of sums from them; that the 5th respondent did not get approval from the 4th respondent for number of years, but has been running the institution; that the 2nd respondent has been running the technical and diploma courses without any approval by the 4th respondent as per the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987; that more than 30000 students were cheated by them in the past; that the 3rd respondent was functioning under the control of the 1st respondent; that the 2nd respondent was running the technical and diploma courses through various private agencies like 5th and 6th respondents; that they got various brand names like 5th and 6th respondents; that the 6th respondent has not followed any norms for admission, curriculums, teaching system and examination method, but has issued the mark statement without conducting examinations and in particular not conducting practical examination; that there was no adequate teaching staff, but attractive advertisements were given with misrepresentations, and invariably the students aggrieved have paid Rs.50000/-, Rs.75000/- and Rs.100000/-respectively; that the petitioner joined the 6th respondent under the category of Diploma in Hotel Management catering for two years from 2004; that the 6th respondent made a demand for Rs.59000/-; that he borrowed Rs.30000/- and paid to the 6th respondent; that the classes were conducted only for a period of six months, and then he came to know about the irregularities; that when he questioned, he was transferred from the 6th respondent to SISI, Vadapazhani Branch, which was also being run under the control of the 6th respondent; that when he met the Principal, he was threatened; that thereafter, a complaint was lodged before the Assistant Commissioner of Police on 1. 2006, but without any response; that in the meanwhile, one Tamilarasan lodged a complaint on 14. 2006, but without any response; that in the meanwhile, one Tamilarasan lodged a complaint on 14. 2006 before the 7th respondent police; that a case came to be registered in Crime No.16 of 2006 pursuant to the complaint against the 6th respondent, but nothing has happened till this time; that not only the petitioner, but also number of students in hundreds were cheated by the 5th and 6th respondents; that since after the registration of the case, no steps have yet been taken, these students would require the transfer of investigation from the 7th respondent to the 8th respondent CBI, and hence the petition has been brought forth. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterating the averments found in the affidavit, took the Court to the advertisements made by the 5th and 6th respondents and also the averments in the complaint made by Tamilarasan pursuant to which a case in Crime No.16/2006 was registered. Under the circumstances, he would submit that it would require for the transfer of investigation to the CBI. 5. The Court heard the learned Special Government Pleader. He took the Court to the materials placed by him. He would also urge that it is true that a case was registered in Crime No.16/2006 pursuant to the complaint dated 14. 2006 given by one Kumaran against the 6th respondent; that the case was actually taken up for investigation, investigated and referred as mistake of fact; that the only grievance that was ventilated in the course of the complaint was that the institutions were not recognized; and that when the investigation was on, it was found that they were permitted to carry on the course till 2009, and further when some of the students did not continue the education, they were called, and the amounts to which they were entitled including Kumaran who lodged the complaint pursuant to which a case came to be registered, were actually settled. The learned Special Government Pleader placed before the Court a copy of the report wherein it is stated that the case was dropped as mistake of fact. 6. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the rival submissions made. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader placed before the Court a copy of the report wherein it is stated that the case was dropped as mistake of fact. 6. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the rival submissions made. 7. The only grievance ventilated by the petitioner in the course of this PIL is the nonrecognition of the respondents 5 and 6 without which they have been carrying on the course, and hence the petitioner and other students were affected, and a case came to be registered by the 7th respondent. It is not in controversy that a complaint was given by one Kumaran pursuant to which a case was registered in Crime No.16/2006 by the Central Crime Branch, Salem, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473 and 506(ii) IPC. A perusal of the materials and also the report placed by the State, would clearly indicate that actually investigation was conducted, and it was felt that the course could be extended as per the communication addressed, till the period 2009. Added circumstance was that including the complainant all the persons who did not want to pursue their studies, were called, and they have also got back the respective amounts. Under the circumstances, there was nothing to indicate that they had got any mens rea for cheating, and thus it was not a fit case for further investigation and accordingly put an end by referring it as mistake of fact. 8. This Court is of the considered opinion that in view of the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs for two reasons. Firstly, the respondents 5 and 6 at the time of investigation were allowed to continue the course till the year 2009, and secondly, the complainant who has given the complaint on 14. 2006 pursuant to which the case was registered in Crime No.16/2006, and also the other students have received the amounts from the respondents 5 and 6 since they did not want to pursue the studies. At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Government of Tamil Nadu gave instructions to the respondents 5 and 6 not to continue the course beyond 2005. At this juncture, it is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Government of Tamil Nadu gave instructions to the respondents 5 and 6 not to continue the course beyond 2005. Once the case has been referred to as mistake of fact, this Court is of the view that no question of transfer of investigation from the 7th respondent to the 8th respondent would arise. However, if really the petitioner is aggrieved over the case being referred as mistake of fact, the course is always open to him under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and there cannot be any impediment for him in doing so. Hence no question of granting a writ would arise. At the same time, The 7th respondent is directed to serve on the complainant Kumaran, a notice as to the referring of the case as mistake of fact. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are also dismissed.