ORDER : Since common questions of law and that of fact arises for decision making, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and disposed of by this order. 2. On 09.04.2015, the following order was passed: "Arguments of learned counsel appearing on either side are heard in extenso and the petitions are required to be decided. However, it is submitted that another similar petition being WP No.50106/2014 involving the same or overlapping issues is filed and is coming up for hearing on 15.04.2015 and to be also argued for final disposal on that date. The hearing in the present matter is adjourned to 15.04.2015 at 2.50 p.m., on the understanding that no further adjournment on any ground whatsoever may be granted in either of the petitions. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP No. 50106/2014 is also present in the Court and has agreed to have the proceeding concluded in both the matters on that date. Notice is stated to have been served upon learned Assistant Solicitor General Mr. Krishna S. Dixit. Therefore, his name shall be shown as appearing in that matter on that date. It is clarified that no interim relief is so far granted in either of the petitions and no interim relief is operating." 3. The Government order bearing No.HD 98 CID 2013, Bangalore dated 18.11.2013 of the 1st respondent-State of Karnataka is challenged in both the petitions. In addition, in W.P.Nos.49764-49765/2014, the challenge is over the preliminary enquiry bearing Nos.PE02(A)/2014/CBI/ CB/BLR/5021 dated 15.07.2014 and notice bearing No.PE 03 (A)/2014/CBI/ACB/BLR/4121 dated 11.06.2014 of the 2 respondent -Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI); while in W.P.No.50106/2014, the challenge is over the notice bearing No.PE 02(A)/2014/CBI/ACB/61,R/3612 dated 22.05.2014, as also the notice bearing No.PE03(A)/2014/CBI/ACB/BLR/4118 dated. 11.06.2014 of the 2"-1 respondent-CBI. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the interlocutory application Nos. 68 and 103 of 2012 in WP (Civil) No.562/2009 filed before the Apex Court by an NGO named Samaj Parivartana Samudaya, certain allegations relating to illegal export of iron-ore from Belekeri port were made. The Apex Court, pursuant thereto, directed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to look into the various allegations made in the I.As and submit its report. 68 and 103 of 2012 in WP (Civil) No.562/2009 filed before the Apex Court by an NGO named Samaj Parivartana Samudaya, certain allegations relating to illegal export of iron-ore from Belekeri port were made. The Apex Court, pursuant thereto, directed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to look into the various allegations made in the I.As and submit its report. On 05.09.2012, CEC is said to have submitted its second report before the Apex Court with some recommendations, which when considered, the Apex Court, in its order dated 07.09.2012, accepted the report and passed certain directions whereby, the 2nd respondent-CBI was directed to investigate info various allegations as recommended in the report. 5. It is further stated that the CBI on 13.09.2012, based upon the directions of the Apex Court, registered FIR No.RC 13(A)/2012 dated 13.09.2012 against the 2nd petitioner -company in W.P.Nos.49764-49765/20 J 4; while on 29.10.2013, the Economic offences Wing of the CBI registered FIR bearing No.RC 16(E)/2013 against the 1st petitioner-company. The CBI registered FIR Nos.RC 14(A)/2012 and RC No.17(A)/2012 dated 13.09.2012 against the petitioner-company in W.P.No.50106/2014, while the Economic offences Wing of the CBI registered FIR. bearing Nos.RC 13(E)/2013 and 15(E)/2013 against the petitioner and issued notices dated 22.05.2014 and 11.06.2014 calling upon the petitioner to submit documents in connection with the preliminary enquiry. 6. The State of Karnataka, it is said, on 18.11.2013, issued an order according sanction to the 2nd respondent-CBI under Sections 5 and 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for short DSPE Act), for investigation into illegal export of iron-ore from 9 ports namely, 1. Karwar - Karnataka State 2. New Mangaluru Port Trust-Mangaluru-Karnataka 3. Krishna Pattanam-Andhra Pradesh State 4. Kakinada-Andhra Pradesh State 5. Vishakapattanam-Andhra Pradesh State 6. Ennore-Tamilnadu Stafe 7. Chennai-Tamilnadu State 8. Panaji-Goa State and 9. Motmugao-Goa State 7. It is the further assettion of the petitioners that pursuant to the aforesaid Government order, preliminary enquiry is registered by the CBI against the petitioners -companies. Hence the petitions. 8. Krishna Pattanam-Andhra Pradesh State 4. Kakinada-Andhra Pradesh State 5. Vishakapattanam-Andhra Pradesh State 6. Ennore-Tamilnadu Stafe 7. Chennai-Tamilnadu State 8. Panaji-Goa State and 9. Motmugao-Goa State 7. It is the further assettion of the petitioners that pursuant to the aforesaid Government order, preliminary enquiry is registered by the CBI against the petitioners -companies. Hence the petitions. 8. Before proceeding to consider the submissions of the learned counsel, it is useful to notice relevant portion of the order dated 07.09.2012 of the Apex Court on I.A.Nos.68 and 103 of 2012 in W.P.(Civil) No.562/2009 in Samajparivartana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka And Others, which runs thus: "We have perused the Supplementary Report dated September 5, 2012 submitted by the CEC in continuance of its earlier report on the same issue dated April 27, 2012. We accept the report and in light of the recommendations made in it we direct the CBI to immediately institute FIRs and to investigate the cases relating to the illegal extraction of about 50.79 lakh MT of iron ore from the forest areas of Karnataka during the penod January 1, 2009 to May 31, 2010, the illegal transport of the aforesaid quantity of iron ore from the areas of extraction to Belekeri Port and from there its illegal export to other countries. It may be. noted at this stage that out of the aforesaid quantity of 50.79 lakh MTs which got illegally exported outside the country, over 8 lakhs MTs iron ore, found lying at Belekari Port was actually under orders of seizure by the Forest Department authorities and die Court before it was exported in violation not only of different laws but in teeth of the seizure order. The investigation of the case of illegal export over 8 lakh MT iron ore while it was under order of seizure is recommended at sub-paragraph (IV) at page 14. As recommended in the report of the CEC the CBI should institute FIRs as suggested in sub paragraphs (I) and (IY7) at pages 12 and 14 respectively of the report and carry out thorough and intensive investigation including, if so required, custodial interrogation of any accused. At the same time, the CBI should also conduct preliminary inquiry as suggested in the report of the CEC in sub-paragraphs (II) and (III) at pages 13 and 14 respectively, xxxxxx" 9. At the same time, the CBI should also conduct preliminary inquiry as suggested in the report of the CEC in sub-paragraphs (II) and (III) at pages 13 and 14 respectively, xxxxxx" 9. There is no dispute that the Government of Karnataka, in its order dated 18.11.2013, accorded sanction to the CBI under Sections 5 and 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 for investigation into illegal export of iron-ore from 9 ports noticed supra and to determine the extent of illegal ore which was exported, and to find out whether any criminal prosecution against any person/s involved is necessary based upon the findings of the Lokayukta in Chapters I, II, III and other relevant Chapters of its second report dated 27.07.2011. So also, there is no dispute that in view of the consent, the Central Government issued the notification dated 11.03.2014 in exercise of powers under Sections 5 and 6 of the DSPE Act extending the power and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole State of Karnataka for investigation/enquiry into the illegal export of iron-ore from Karwar and New Mangaluru Port Trust, Mangaluru (Karnataka) as also the attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to the above mentioned offences. 10. The sum and substance of the submission of the learned counsel is, that me State of Karnataka could not have extended consent for exercise of jurisdiction by the CBI in areas falling within the States of Andhra Pradesh and Tamilnadu as well as Goa. Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 reads thus: "6. Consent of State Government to exercise of powers and jurisdiction.- Nothing contained in section 5 shall be deemed to enable any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area in a State, not being a Union territory or railway area, without the consent of the Government of that State." 11. The aforesaid provision relating to grant of consent by the State, it is needless to state, requires the consent of a State, not being union territory or railway area, for the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in the area more appropriately within the State of Karnataka. The aforesaid provision relating to grant of consent by the State, it is needless to state, requires the consent of a State, not being union territory or railway area, for the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in the area more appropriately within the State of Karnataka. In the order dated 18.11.2013, though the State of Karnataka extended its consent for areas falling within the States of Andhra Pradesh, Tamilnadu and Goa, nevertheless should he read restricting it to the State of Karnataka. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the petitioners that the State did not have jurisdiction over the areas falling within the ports of Karwar and New Mangaluru Port Trust in Karwar district and Mangaluru district respectively of die State. In that view of the matter, the first submission is without merit. 12. The second submission of the learned counsel is that the order dated 18.11.2013 ought not to precede a notification of the Central Government under Section 5 of the DSPE Act. According to the learned counsel, a conspectus of the provisions of the DSPE Act leads to the conclusion that the scheme envisages a notification of the Central Government in the first instance under Section 5 where afterwards, it is for the State to extend its consent, while what is done in the present case is the consent by the State precedes the exercise of jurisdiction by members of the Delhi Police Establishment under the subsequent notification. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as for the respondent State of Karnataka, place reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in M. Bala Krishna Reddy v. Director, CBI., New Delhi ( AIR 2008 SC 1754 ), more appropriately paragraphs 15, 17 and 71. At paragraph 15, the Apex Court observed thus: "15, Plain reading of the above provisions goes to show that for exercise of jurisdiction by the CBI in a State (other than Union 'Territory or Railway Area), consent of the State Government is necessary. At paragraph 15, the Apex Court observed thus: "15, Plain reading of the above provisions goes to show that for exercise of jurisdiction by the CBI in a State (other than Union 'Territory or Railway Area), consent of the State Government is necessary. In other words, before the provisions of the Delhi Act are invoked to exercise power and jurisdiction by Special Police Establishment in any State, the following conditions must be fulfilled: (i) A notification must be issued by the Central Government specifying the offences to be investigated by Delhi Special Police Establishment (Section 3); (ii) An order must be passed by the Central Government extending the powers and jurisdiction of Delhi Special Police Establishment to any State in respect of the offences specified under Section 3 (Section 5); and (iii) Consent of the State Government must be obtained for the exercise of powers by Delhi Special Police Establishment in the State (Section 6)" Followed by paragraph 17 which reads thus; "17. The question, therefore, which has to be considered is whether the consent contemplated by Section 6 of die Delhi Act has been given by the State Government. According to the appellant, no such consent has been given by the State of Madhya Pradesh. The counter argument on behalf of the respondent is that such consent has been given by the State Government which is reflected in the order dated February 5, 1957." And further at paragraph 71, it is observed thus: "71. A closer scrutiny of the relevant provisions of the Delhi Act also add credence to the view which we are inclined to take. Section 3 refers to notification and requires the Central Government to issue notification specifying offences or class of offences to be investigated by Special Police Establishment. Section 5 uses the term order and enables the Central Government to extend powers and jurisdiction of Special Police Establishment to other areas not covered by the Act. Section 5 which speaks of consent of State Government for the exercise of powers and jurisdiction of the Special Establishment neither refers to notification nor order. It merely requires consent of the State Government for the application of the Delhi Act. Parliament, in our considered opinion, advisedly and deliberately did nor specify the mode, method or manner for granting consent though in two preceding sections such mode was provided. It merely requires consent of the State Government for the application of the Delhi Act. Parliament, in our considered opinion, advisedly and deliberately did nor specify the mode, method or manner for granting consent though in two preceding sections such mode was provided. If it intended that such consent should be in a particular form, it would certainly have provided the form as it was aware of different forms of exercise of power. It, therefore, depends on the facts of each case whether the consent required by Section 6 of the Delhi Act has or has not been given by the State Government and no rule of universal application can be laid down." (emphasis supplied) 13. The observations of the Apex Court at paragraphs 15 and 71 cannot but lead to the only conclusion that the consent of the State Government must be obtained for the exercise of powers and jurisdiction by the Special Police Establishment in that State, while Section 6 of DSPE Act does not specify die mode, method or manner for granting consent. The parliament having advisedly and deliberately not specified the mode, method or manner for granting consent, though, in two preceding sections such mode was provided, the Apex Court observed that if it intended that such consent should be in a particular form, it would certainly have provided the form as it was aware of different forms of exercise of power and that the consent required under Section 6 will depend upon the facts of each case and further no rule of universal application can be laid down. In that view of the matter, the submission of the learned counsel that it is only in a particular sequence of events that the State must extend its consent under Section 6 of the Act i.e., only after the Central Government issued a notification under Section 5 and not earlier, cannot be countenanced. 14. A feeble submission was made that the investigation by the CBI under the Act must be need based either by the Central Government or the State Government and therefore, there being no need established in either of the two notifications i.e., the State Government and the Central Government, the investigation by holding a preliminary enquiry cannot be sustained, is noticed only to be rejected. If regard is had to the pending proceeding before the Apex Court and the order passed thereunder, noticed supra, directing prosecution of all persons and institutions involved in illegal extraction of mineral and its export coupled with the contents of the preamble to the order of the State Government for extending consent, making reference to the report of the Lokayukta and the fact that there are serious allegation of illegal extraction of iron-ore in the State of Karnataka and its export thereafter, is with a view to ensure a fair investigation into all the allegations in public interest, by the Delhi Special Police Establishment cannot be found fault with. Though the directions of the Apex Court in the order dated 7.9.2012, supra, relates to illegal extraction of 50.79 lakhs MT of iron ore from the forest areas of Karnataka during the period from 1.1.2009 to 31.5.2010, on the basis of the reports of CEC, nevertheless the Government of Karnataka extended its consent for investigation on the premise of the reports of the Lokayukta in the State of Karnataka. 15. The last of the submission is that the word entrust found in the preamble to the order of the State Government does not amount to a decision of the State over its subjective satisfaction for extending consent, but is upon a request by the Commerce and Industries Department, Government of Karnataka in file No.CI 282 MMM 2011 (P-2) for an investigation of the illegal iron ore export to the CBI. As noticed supra, the Apex Court having taken the lead by issuing directions to the CBI over the specific quantity of illegal iron-ore extraction and export, to be conducted by the CBI, on the basis of the report of CEC, the request of the Commerce and Industries Department of the State of Karnataka on the basis of the reports of the Lokayukta in public interest, cannot be said to be bereft of reason. 16. We find no merit in the petitions and arc accordingly rejected, sequentially interim applications stand rejected.