Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 605 (UTT)

Randhir Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation

2016-09-21

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs, among others: “(A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned first information report dated 25.03.2015 as FIR no. RC 0072015 S0003, under Sections 120B read with Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC, registered at Police Station, CBI, SPE, Dehradun against the petitioner. (B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent not to arrest or harass the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid FIR during the pendency of the investigation.” (2) An FIR was lodged by one Shyam Bahadur Maurya against the petitioner with police station, Cantt. Dehradun on 25.06.2007, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, alleging therein that the accused (petitioner herein) got employment on the post of lecturer on the basis of forged educational certificates. (3) Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, A.G.A. for the respondent State submitted that final report has been filed in the case by the Investigation Officer in 2007. Learned counsel for CBI submitted that subsequent thereto CBI registered a fresh FIR and, thereafter, the CBI started investigating the case, which is under challenge in the present criminal writ petition. (4) In paras 5 and 6 of the criminal writ petition, the petitioner has stated as under: “5. At the very outset, it is submitted that the petitioner is working as Lecturer in Cantt. Girls Inter College, Garhi Cantt, Dehradun and the said school is run by the committee of management whose members are elected through election and by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the petitioner is a servant of the Cantt. Board and, hence, the CBI has no jurisdiction to lodge the FIR and consequently to investigate the matter in issue. 6. Not only this, the salaries of all staff working in the schools as well as all the expenses of maintenance of the school are being borne by the Sate Government and not a single penny has been utilized by the Cantt. Board in running the school and, as such, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the petitioner is a servant of Cantt. Board in running the school and, as such, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the petitioner is a servant of Cantt. Board and, hence, is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the CBI and, hence, the FIR is liable to be quashed, inasmuch as, neither the State Government has issued the notification under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, to transfer the investigation nor the petitioner is a subject amenable to jurisdiction of CBI.” (5) Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in response to the counter affidavit filed by the CBI. In para 4 of such rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has quoted Section 2 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. In para 3 of the rejoinder affidavit, it has been stated that CBI has no jurisdiction to investigate the matter without there being any consent of the State Government. The requirements which ought to have been complied with, have been mentioned in para 5 of the rejoinder affidavit, leading to the interpretation that the members of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act does not have jurisdiction in the State, unless the State consents to the same. Section 5 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (for brevity here-in-after referred to as ‘the DSPE Act’) provides that the Central Government can extend the jurisdiction of the CBI to the particular State including, Railway areas. The jurisdiction of the Central Government can only be extended if and only if the State Government has given consent with respect to the investigation of that offence under Section 6 of DSPE Act. Once the consent has been given by the State Government, then only the Central Government can extend the jurisdiction and if these essential steps are not complied with, the CBI has no jurisdiction to investigate the matter. (6) In para 11 of the rejoinder affidavit, it has been stated that there are institutions of the Central Government within the territories of the State, say, for example Indian Military Academy, I.T.B.P. and if certain offences are committed by the public servants of those establishment while discharging the duties within the territory of the State, even then the consent of the State Government is required by virtue of Section 6 of the DSPE Act. (7) The Cantt. Board has neither established nor maintained the college in which the petitioner is posted as lecturer. (7) The Cantt. Board has neither established nor maintained the college in which the petitioner is posted as lecturer. The said college is subject matter of Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006. It will be appropriate to refer to Section 52 of the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006 in this regard. The same is quoted here-in-below for convenience: “52. Exemption of certain classes of institutions from the operation of certain sections-(1) The provisions of sections 29, 30, 31, sub-section (2) to sub-section (14) of section 34 and sections 35 to 51 shall not apply to recognized institutions run and maintained by the State Government or the Central Government.” (2) In the case of recognized institutions maintained by a local body, the State Government may declare that all or any of the provisions referred to in sub-section (1) shall not apply or shall apply subject to such alterations, modifications or additions as it may make and the provisions, if any, so made applicable, shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force.” (8) Section 29 of the Uttarakhand Education Act, 2006, deals with the scheme of administration, Section 30 says that scheme of administration shall not be inconsistent with the Schedule. Section 31 says that the scheme of administration to be presented for section before the Director and Section 34 deals with the inspection of the recognized institution and removal of defects etc. The petitioner cannot, therefore, be treated as an employee of either the Cantonment Board or the State Government, according to the rejoinder affidavit. The reasons for issuing the appointment letter by the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantt. Board is only for the purpose of exemption being given under Section 52(1) of the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006. (9) Documents have been brought on record in support of such statements along with the rejoinder affidavit. The Court need not elaborate all those documents any further. (10) Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 drew attention of this Court towards counter affidavit filed on his behalf, para 8 of which is important in the context of present criminal writ petition in which some of the averments made by the petitioner on oath in his earlier Writ Petition no. (10) Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 drew attention of this Court towards counter affidavit filed on his behalf, para 8 of which is important in the context of present criminal writ petition in which some of the averments made by the petitioner on oath in his earlier Writ Petition no. 34634 of 1998, titled as Randheer Singh vs District Inspector of Schools, Dehradun and others, filed before the Allahabad High Court, which was later received by transfer to this Court and renumbered as Writ Petition no. 1755 (S/S) of 2011 have been quoted. The said writ petition was decided on 03.04.2008. The same are reproduced here-in-under for convenience: “2. That the Cantonment Board, Dehradun has established and is running & managing an educational Institution under the name of Cantt. Kanya Inter College at Garhi in District Dehradun which is recognized by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. 3. The substantive vacancies of lecturer in Sociology and lecturer in Civics were existing in the aforesaid Institution. For filing up the said vacancies on regular basis, Cantonment Board, Dehradun invited names from the Employment Exchange, Dehradun of qualified candidates registered with Employment Exchange. In pursuance to the request sent to the Employment Exchange, the Employment Exchange forwarded the names of candidates registered with it, including the name of the petitioner. 4. That thereafter a selection was conducted in which the petitioner was selected for appointment as lecturer in Sociology. In pursuance thereto, an appointment letter dated 13.10.1997 was issued to the petitioner. A true copy of the appointment letter dated 13.10.1997 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. 5. That in pursuance to the appointment letter, the petitioner joined on his post on 20.10.1997 and since then has been continuously functioning. Attention is drawn to office order issued on 27.03.1998, directing that the petitioner would remain on probation for a period of two years and that his services would be governed by the Cantonment Servants Rules, 1937 and other rules/regulations applicable to Cantonment Fund Servants… A true copy of the office order dated 27.03.1996 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure 2 to the writ petition.... ……………….. 20. ……………….. 20. That in passing the order impugned, the District Inspector of Schools has failed to consider and decide the fundamental question as to which particular set of provision are applicable to the appointment in Institutions run by the Cantonment Board. 21. That according to the specific case of the petitioner as also the Cantonment Board before the District Inspector of Schools it is only the provisions of the Cantonment Act, 1924, and the rules and regulations framed there under which are applicable for an appointment in Institution run and managed by Cantonment Board and for determining the conditions of service of teachers functioning in such Institutions. However, according to the claim of respondent no. 4 and 5, it is the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which were applicable. 22. That by means of the order impugned the fundamental issue requiring determination has gone undetermined by the District Inspector of Schools. 23. That it is necessary to bring on record a copy of the Government Order dated 20.09.1995, whereby recognition has been accorded to the Institution for running Intermediate classes. A true copy of which G.O. dated 20.09.1995 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure 9 to the writ petition. This G.O. contains no conditions under which the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, have been applied or appointment have to be made there under. 24. That infact the appointment and service condition are governed only by the Cantonment Acts and the Rules framed there under. Attention is specifically drawn to the provisions of Cantonment Fund Servants Rule, 1937. 25. That even in case there is a conflict between the Cantonment Act, 1924 and the rules framed there under and the Intermediate Education Act, 1924 and the rules and regulations framed there under, it is the provisions of the Cantonment Fund Act, 1924 and the rules framed there under which have overriding effect over the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Act, 1921 and the rules & regulations framed there under….” (11) In the said judgment it has been observed by learned Single Judge that the petitioner’s services would be governed by the Cantonment Servants Rules, 1937, and other rules/regulations applicable to Cantonment Fund servants. (12) It is contended by learned counsel for respondent no. 3 that it was the specific case of the petitioner as also the Cantt. (12) It is contended by learned counsel for respondent no. 3 that it was the specific case of the petitioner as also the Cantt. Board before the District Inspector of Schools that only the provisions of Cantonment Act, 1924 and the rules/regulations framed there under are applicable for an appointment in institution run and managed by Cantt. Board and for determining the conditions of service of teachers functioning in such institutions. It is, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for respondent no. 3 that the petitioner’s services shall be governed only by the provisions of Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 and there is no application of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The post on which the petitioner was appointed in 1997 was created by the order dated 28.02.1997, passed by General Officer Commanding, Central Command, in exercise of power under Rule 47 of Cantonment Account Code, 1924 read with Rule 5 of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937. (13) Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 also referred to a decision of this Court in Smt. Poonam Verma vs Cantonment Board, Dehradun and others, reported in 2010 (2) U.D. 51 , to which learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner clarified that the said judgment has been reversed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and the matter has been remanded back. (14) Paras nos. 4 and 14 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.1/CBI is also important in the context of the present case. The same read as under: 4. That each Cantonment has a system of local self-governance and has a Cantonment Board. Each Cantonment Board has its own budget and comprises elected, nominated and ex-officio members. The Board is responsible for all civic, social, developmental and regulatory functions. The Cantonment Board has a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) who functions as Member-Secretary to the Cantonment Board. 14. That in reply to averment made in para 5, 6 and 7, it is submitted that Cantonment Board Dehradun is an autonomous body functioning under he overall control of the Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India. Supervision and Control over the working of the Cantonment Board is exercised by the Principal Director, Defence Estates, and by the Central Government through the Director General, Defence Estates, New Delhi/Ministry of Defence at the Apex level. The Cantonment Board Dehradun has a system of local self-governance. of India. Supervision and Control over the working of the Cantonment Board is exercised by the Principal Director, Defence Estates, and by the Central Government through the Director General, Defence Estates, New Delhi/Ministry of Defence at the Apex level. The Cantonment Board Dehradun has a system of local self-governance. The board comprises of elected, nominated and ex-officio members and is responsible for all civic, social, developmental and regulatory functions within the area of cantonment board. The Cantonment Board has a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) who functions as Member-Secretary to the Cantonment Board. Besides providing healthy environment for its citizens, the Cantonment Board, Dehradun runs one Girls Inter College, two Junior High Schools and two primary schools. The present petitioner is working as Junior Lecturer at Cantt. Girls Inter College, Dehradun. He is a public servant and a regular employee of a Cantt. Board, Dehradun. He was appointed as a Junior Lecturer by the Chief Executive Officer, Cantt. Board, Dehradun in the year 1997 and he is getting his salary from Cantt. Board, Office Dehradun. The appointment letter issued to the present petitioner by the then CEO, Cantt. Board Dehradun had also categorically stated that his services will be governed by the Cantonment Funds Rules, 1937. Thus there is no ambiguity in the fact that the petitioner- (i) Is working under Cantt. Board, Office Dehradun. (ii) Was issued appointment as Junior Lecturer (Sociology) by the then CEO, Cantt. Board, Dehradun. (iii) Is being paid salary and other dues by the Cantt. Board, Office Dehradun. (iv) Is under the overall administrative control of Chief Executive Officer, Cantt. Board, Dehradun. This shows that the petitioner is an employee of Cantonment Board, Dehradun. The petitioner is booked u/s 120-B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC for cheating the cantonment board by submitting forged documents in furtherance of criminal conspiracy with other unknown persons. The petitioner cheated cantonment board at the time of his selection by submitting false and fake documents. He is charged under IPC offences. He is not booked under P.C. Act for abusing his official position. The plea taken by the petitioner that he is not an employee of cantonment board can not be substantiated because the crux for the offence of cheating is deception at the inception i.e. from the very beginning. Thus the plea taken by the petitioner that he is not a Cantt. The plea taken by the petitioner that he is not an employee of cantonment board can not be substantiated because the crux for the offence of cheating is deception at the inception i.e. from the very beginning. Thus the plea taken by the petitioner that he is not a Cantt. Board employee is totally wrong and raised by him to divert the main issue of FIR and also to counter the allegations against him for getting employment in Cantt. Board, Dehradun by using fake documents. Thus the plea of the petitioner that CBI has no jurisdiction over the matter is totally wrong and misconceived. CBI has full jurisdiction over the matter under investigation.” (15) Learned counsel for the respondent no.1/CBI drew attention of this Court towards the appointment letter of the petitioner to indicate that there was stipulation in the appointment letter that the appointment is subject to reimbursement of establishment expenditure of the Inter College by the Education Department of the State Government. It was also mentioned in said appointment letter that–your services will be governed by the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937, as amended from time to time and other legal provisions as applicable. The judgment rendered by learned Single Judge in WPSS no. 1755 of 2001 (old no. 34634 of 1998) was challenged by the private respondents and was decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court on 28.12.2011. Special Appeal no. 197 of 2010 filed against the order passed by the Division Bench was not admitted and the Special Appeal was dismissed at the admission stage itself. (16) Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1/CBI further relied upon a Notification no. 70/Home (CBI)/2001 dated Dehradun January 8, 2001, issued by Government of Uttaranchal (Home Department), wherein in pursuance of the provisions of Section 6 of the DSPE Act, 1946, the Governor of Uttaranchal has accorded consent to the extension of powers and jurisdiction of members of the DSPE to the whole of the State of Uttaranchal for investigation of offences mentioned in Schedule I. Subject however, to the condition that no such investigation shall be taken up in cases relating to the public servants controlled by the State government of Uttaranchal except with the prior written permission of the State Government. (17) Before this Court proceeds further, it will be apposite to quote here-in-below the following order, passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 10.12.2015. The relevant paragraphs of said judgment are being reproduced here-in-below for convenience: “…Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the petitioner, submits that petitioner was working as a lecturer (Sociology) in Cantt. Girls Inter College, Garhi Cantt., Dehradun, which is a Grant-in-Aid school, wherein every grant is being released by the State Government. He further contends that although Management Committee is managing day-to-day affairs of the school, however, since school is now getting aid from the State Government, therefore, school is controlled by the State Government. Hence as per the notification dated 08.01.2001, issued by State of Uttarakhand, CBI is not empowered to undertake investigation relating to the public servants controlled by State Government except prior written permission from the State Government. On the other hand, Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the C.B.I. submits that school in question is under the control of Cantonment Board, which is a Central Government autonomous body, therefore, C.B.I. has every jurisdiction to investigate the matter relating to the servant serving in the school under the control and management of the Cantonment Board. Since, important question of law has arisen, therefore, I feel that before taking decision, I should hear Cantonment Board, Garhi Cantt., Dehradun as well as State Government, so that they may assist the Court as to what is the status of the school and who is, in fact, controlling the school. Let petitioner implead State Government through Secretary, Education as well as Cantonment Board, Garhi Cantt. Dehradun as party respondent no. 2 and 3. Mr. Raman K. Sah, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 2. Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate, has accepted notice on behalf of Cantonment Board. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate undertakes to supply the copy of the petition on the counsel for the respondent no. 2 and 3 during the course of the day. List on 18.12.2015, meanwhile, respondent no. 2. Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate, has accepted notice on behalf of Cantonment Board. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate undertakes to supply the copy of the petition on the counsel for the respondent no. 2 and 3 during the course of the day. List on 18.12.2015, meanwhile, respondent no. 2 and 3 shall file their response before the next date fixed with advance copies to the counsel for the petitioner and C.B.I….” (18) In exercise of powers conferred by Section 280 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 and in super-session of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1925, the Central Government has framed the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937. In the compendium (Cantonment Laws (Vol. I), Third Revised Edition, published by Western Law House) which has been handed over to this Court for perusal, there is a reference of Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter no. 25/63/C/L&C/67 dated 28.10.1967 saying that as the Cantonment Fund Servants are not Central Government servants they are not governed as a rule by the orders/instructions issued by the Ministry of Defence from time to time for the defence Civilians Employees unless they are extended to the Cantonment Board employees with the prior approval of Ministry of Defence. There is a reference of a decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and others vs R.C. Jain and others, AIR 1981 SC 951 (infra) to hold that Cantonment Board is an independent legal entity. It is separate from the Government and its employees are not the employees of the Central Government. They are employees of the Cantonment Board which is a body corporate. (19) The expression ‘local authority’ has been defined in General Clauses Act, 1897. Section 3(31) of the same reads as under: “Local Authority shall mean a Municipal Committee, District Board, Body of Port Commissioners or other authority legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with, the control or management of a municipal or local fund”. (20) It will also be apt to quote herein some of the important observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and others vs R.C. Jain and others, AIR 1981 SC 951 . The same read as under: ‘Local Fund’ is again not defined in the General Clauses Act. (20) It will also be apt to quote herein some of the important observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and others vs R.C. Jain and others, AIR 1981 SC 951 . The same read as under: ‘Local Fund’ is again not defined in the General Clauses Act. Though the expression appears to have received treatment in the Fundamental Rules and the Treasury Code, we refrain from borrowing the meaning attributed to the expression in those rules as it is not a sound rule of interpretation to seek the meaning of words used in an Act, in the definition clause of other statutes. The definition of an expression in one Act must not be imported into another. “It would be a new terror in the construction of Acts of Parliament if we were required to limit a word to an unnatural sense because in some Act which is not incorporated or referred to such an interpretation is given to it for the purposes of that Act alone” (per Loreburn L.C. in Macbeth & Co. v. Chislett, 1910 AC 220). For the same reason we refrain from borrowing upon the definition of ‘Local Authority’ in enactments such as the Cattle Trespass Act 1871 etc. as the High Court has done. 2. Let us, therefore, concentrate and confine our attention and enquiry to the definition of ’Local Authority’ in Sec. 3(31) of the General Clauses Act. A proper and careful scrutiny of the language of Sec. 3(31) suggests that an authority in order to be a local Authority, must be of like nature and character as a Municipal Committee, District Board or Body of Port Commissioners, possessing, therefore, many, if not all, of the distinctive attributes and characteristics of a Municipal Committee, District Board, or Body of Port Commissioners, but, possessing one essential feature, namely, that it is legally entitled to or entrusted by the Government with, the control and management of a municipal or local fund. What then are the distinctive attributes and characteristics, all or many of which a Municipal Committee, District Board or Body of Port Commissioners shares with any other local authority? First, the authorities must have separate legal existence as Corporate bodies. They must not be mere Governmental agencies but must be legally independent entities. What then are the distinctive attributes and characteristics, all or many of which a Municipal Committee, District Board or Body of Port Commissioners shares with any other local authority? First, the authorities must have separate legal existence as Corporate bodies. They must not be mere Governmental agencies but must be legally independent entities. Next, they must function in a defined area and must ordinarily, wholly or partly, directly or indirectly, be elected by the inhabitants of the area. Next, they must enjoy a certain degree of autonomy, with freedom to decide for themselves questions of policy affecting the area administered by them. The autonomy may not be complete and the degree of the dependence may vary considerably but, an appreciable measure of autonomy there must be. Next, they must be entrusted by Statute with such Governmental functions and duties as are usually entrusted to municipal bodies, such as those connected with providing amenities to the inhabitants of the locality, like health and education services, water and sewerage, town planning and development, roads, markets, transportation, social welfare services etc. etc. Broadly we may say that they may be entrusted with the performance of civic duties and functions which would otherwise be Governmental duties and functions. Finally, they must have the power to raise funds for the furtherance of their activities and the fulfillment of their projects by levying taxes, rates, charges, or fees. This may be in addition to moneys provided by Government or obtained by borrowing or otherwise. What is essential is that control or management of the fund must vest in the authority. [Emphasis supplied] 3. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla Cotton, Spinning & Weaving Mills Delhi & Anr., Hidayatullah, J., described some of the attributes of local bodies in this manner: "Local bodies are subordinate branches of governmental activity. They are democratic institutions managed by the representatives of the people. They function for public purposes and take away a part of the government affairs in local areas. They are political sub divisions and agencies which exercise a part of State functions. As they are intended to carry on local self-government the power of taxation is a necessary adjunct to their other powers. They function under the supervision of the Government". [Emphasis supplied] 4. In Valjibhai Muljibhai Soneji and Anr. They are political sub divisions and agencies which exercise a part of State functions. As they are intended to carry on local self-government the power of taxation is a necessary adjunct to their other powers. They function under the supervision of the Government". [Emphasis supplied] 4. In Valjibhai Muljibhai Soneji and Anr. v. The State of Bombay (Now Gujarat) & Ors., (1964) 3 SCR 686 , one of the questions was whether the State Trading Corporation was a local Authority as defined by Sec. 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It was held that it was not, because it was not an authority legally entitled to or entrusted by the Government with, control or management of a local fund. It was observed that though the Corporation was furnished with funds by the Government for commencing its business that would not make the funds of the Corporation ‘local funds’…. 11. … In the first place when it is said that one of the attributes of a local authority is the power to raise funds by the method of taxation, taxation is to be understood not in any fine and narrow sense as to include only those compulsory exactions of money imposed for public purpose and requiring no consideration to sustain it, but in a broad generic sense as to also include fees levied essentially for services rendered. It is now well recognised that there is no generic difference between a tax and a fee; both are compulsory exactions of money by public authority. In deciding the question whether an authority is a local authority, our concern is only to find out whether the Public authority is authorised by Statute to make a compulsory exaction of money and not with the further question whether the money so exacted is to be utilised for specific or general purposes. In the second place the Delhi Development Authority is constituted for the sole purpose of the planned development of Delhi and no other purpose and there is a merger, as it were, of specific and general purposes. The statutory situation is such that the distinction between tax and fee has withered away. In the third place we see no reason to hold that the charge contemplated by Sec. 37 is a fee and not a tax. The case cited: The Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. & Ors. The statutory situation is such that the distinction between tax and fee has withered away. In the third place we see no reason to hold that the charge contemplated by Sec. 37 is a fee and not a tax. The case cited: The Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. The State of Orissa & Ors., has no application. That was a case where the Government was empowered to levy a cess for the purpose of the development of the mining areas in the State. The cess levied was not to become a part of the consolidated fund and was not subject to an appropriation in that behalf; it went into the special fund earmarked for carrying out the purpose of the Act. There was a definite correlation between the proposed services and the impost levied and it could be legitimately claimed that the rate-payer in substance was compensating the State for the services rendered by it to him. In the present case there is no consolidated fund and no separate development fund. There is only one fund, the Fund of the Delhi Development Authority. What is more important, nor is there any question of any co-relation between the betterment charge and the expenditure incurred by the Authority in carrying out the purposes of the Act. The charge is not levied on the basis of the expenditure incurred. It is levied on the basis of the increase in the value of the property consequent on the development of the area; one may say the charge is on the accrued capital gain; it may bear no proportion whatsoever to the cost of development….” (21) The question which arises next is–can CBI suo moto take up investigation of any crime anywhere in the country? The reply as posted by the CBI in the web site has been quoted in paragraph nos. 13, 14 and 15 of the rejoinder affidavit. CBI, by means of web site clarification, has replied that the CBI has no jurisdiction to exercise powers of investigation suo moto within the State territory and if a general consent is given that is meant for the public servants under the control of the Central Government working in the State. (22) It is an exclusive domain of the State and the Central Government could not encroach upon the State field. Entry no. (22) It is an exclusive domain of the State and the Central Government could not encroach upon the State field. Entry no. 80 of the List 1 of Schedule Seventh of the Constitution of India amply demonstrates the same. In other words, federal structure of the democracy cannot be permitted to be flirted with by anybody. By virtue of Entry no. 80 of List I and II of the Constitution of India it is only the Central Government which can extend the jurisdiction and this power is recognized in Section 5 of the DSPE Act. The same has been clarified in a decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Management of Advance Insurance Company vs Gurudasmal and others, AIR 1970 SC 1126 . (23) But the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts while exercising the powers under Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India can entrust the investigation of the case to CBI in a particular case and the consent of the State Government is not required in such cases. This has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of West Bengal vs Committee for Protection of democratic Rights, West Bengal and others, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571 . The decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ms. Mayawati vs Union of India and others, decided on 06.07.2012, passed in Writ Petition (Criminal) no. 135 of 2008, is other illustration on the point. (24) In paras no. 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 of the judgment rendered in the case of State of West Bengal vs Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus: “28. In order to adjudicate upon the issue at hand, it would be necessary to refer to some other relevant Constitutional and Statutory provisions as well. As noted earlier, the Special Police Act was enacted by the Governor General in Council in exercise of the powers conferred by the Government of India Act, 1935 (Entry 39 of List I, Seventh Schedule). The said Entry reads as under:- "39. As noted earlier, the Special Police Act was enacted by the Governor General in Council in exercise of the powers conferred by the Government of India Act, 1935 (Entry 39 of List I, Seventh Schedule). The said Entry reads as under:- "39. Extension of the powers and jurisdiction of members of a police force belonging to any part of British India to any area in another Governor's Province or Chief Commissioner's Province, but not so as to enable the police of one part to exercise powers and jurisdiction elsewhere without the consent of the Government of the Province or the Chief Commissioner as the case may be; extension of the powers and jurisdiction of members of a police force belonging to any unit to railway areas outside that unit." It is manifest that the Special Police Act was passed in terms of the said Entry imposing prohibition on the Federal Legislature to enact any law permitting the police of one State from investigating an offence committed in another State, without the consent of the State. The said Entry was replaced by Entry 80 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. The said entry reads thus: "80. Extension of the powers and jurisdiction of members of a police force belonging to any State to any area outside that State, but not so as to enable the police of one State to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area outside that State without the consent of the Govt. of the State in which such area is situated; extension of the powers and jurisdiction of members of a police force belonging to any State to railway areas outside that State." 29. Entry 2 of List II of the Constitution of India, which corresponds to Entry 2 List II of the Government of India Act, conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the States in matter relating to police reads as under: Entry 2 List II: "2. Police (including railway and village police) subject to the provisions of entry 2A of List I." Entry 2A of List I: "2-A. Development of any armed force of the Union or any other force subject to the control of the Union or any contingent or unit thereof in any State in aid of the civil power; powers, jurisdiction, privileges and liabilities of the members of such forces while on such deployment." 30. From a bare reading of the afore-noted Constitutional provisions, it is manifest that by virtue of these entries, the legislative power of the Union to provide for the regular police force of one State to exercise power and jurisdiction in any area outside the State can only be exercised with the consent of the Government of that particular State in which such area is situated, except the police force belonging to any State to exercise power and jurisdiction to railway areas outside that State. 31. As the preamble of the Special Police Act states, it was enacted with a view “to constitute a special police force in Delhi for the investigation of certain offences in the Union Territories and to make provisions for the superintendence and administration of the said force and for the extension to other areas of the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the said force in regard to the investigation of the said offences”. 32. Sub-section (1) of Section 1 specifies the title of the Special Police Act and sub-section (2) speaks that the Special Police Act extends to the whole of India. Section 2 contains 3 sub-sections. Sub-section (1) empowers the Central Government to constitute a special police force to be called the Delhi Special Police Establishment for the investigation of offences notified under Section 3 in any Union Territory; sub-section (2) confers upon the members of the said police establishment in relation to the investigation of such offences and arrest of persons concerned in such offences, all the powers, duties, privileges and liabilities which police officers of that Union Territory have in connection with the investigation of offences committed therein and sub-section (3) provides that any member of the said police establishment of or above the rank of Sub-Inspector be deemed to be an officer in charge of a police station. 33. Under Section 3 of the Special Police Act, the Central Government is required to specify and notify the offences or classes of offences which are to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment, constituted under the Special Police Act, named "the CBI". Section 4 deals with the administrative control of the establishment and according to sub-section (2), the "superintendence" of the Establishment vests in the Central Government and the administration of the said establishment vests in an officer appointed in this behalf by the Central Government. Section 4 deals with the administrative control of the establishment and according to sub-section (2), the "superintendence" of the Establishment vests in the Central Government and the administration of the said establishment vests in an officer appointed in this behalf by the Central Government. Explaining the meaning of the word "Superintendence" in Section 4(1) and the scope of the authority of the Central Government in this context, in Vineet Narain Vs. Union of India, 1998 SCC (Cri) 307, a Bench of three Judges of this Court said: (SCC p. 261, para 40) "40....The word "superintendence" in Section 4(1) cannot be construed in a wider sense to permit supervision of the actual investigation of an offence by the CBI contrary to the manner provided by the statutory provisions. The broad proposition urged on behalf of the Union of India that it can issue any directive to the CBI to curtail or inhibit its jurisdiction to investigate an offence specified in the notification issued under Section 3 by a directive under Section 4(1) of the Act cannot be accepted. The jurisdiction of the CBI to investigate an offence is to be determined with reference to the notification issued under Section 3 and not by any separate order not having that character." 34. Section 5 of the Special Police Act empowers the Central Government to extend the powers and jurisdiction of the Special Police Establishment to any area, in a State, not being a Union Territory for the investigation of any offences or classes of offences specified in a notification under Section 3 and on such extension of jurisdiction, a member of the Establishment shall discharge the functions of a police officer in that area and shall, while so discharging such functions, be deemed to be a member of the police force of that area and be vested with the powers, functions and privileges and be subject to the liabilities of a police officer belonging to that police force. 35. Section 6, the pivotal provision, reads as follows:- "6. 35. Section 6, the pivotal provision, reads as follows:- "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." Thus, although Section 5(1) empowers the Central Government to extend the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to any area in a State, but Section 6 imposes a restriction on the power of the Central Government to extend the jurisdiction of the said Establishment only with the consent of the State Government concerned. 36. Having noticed the scope and amplitude of Sections 5 and 6 of the Special Police Act, the question for consideration is whether the restriction imposed on the powers of the Central Government would apply mutatis mutandis to the Constitutional Courts as well. As stated above, the main thrust of the argument of learned senior counsel, is that the course adopted by the High Court in directing the CBI to undertake investigation in the State of West Bengal without the consent of the State is incompatible with the federal structure as also the doctrine of separation of powers between the three organs of the State, embodied in the Constitution even when the High Court, on the material before it, was convinced that the State Police was dragging its feet in so far as investigation into the 4th January, 2001 carnage was concerned. 37. In so far as the first limb of the argument is concerned, it needs little emphasis that, except in the circumstances indicated above, in a federal structure, the Union is not permitted to encroach upon the legislative powers of a State in respect of the matters specified in List II of the Seventh Schedule….” (25) Counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 2, State Government of Uttarakhand, is important in the context of resolving the controversy in hand. Para 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 says that Cantt. Girls Inter College is fully government grant in aid institution vide Government Notification dated 20.09.1995. 2, State Government of Uttarakhand, is important in the context of resolving the controversy in hand. Para 6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 says that Cantt. Girls Inter College is fully government grant in aid institution vide Government Notification dated 20.09.1995. The said institution is running under the School Education and Examination Board, Ramnagar and the syllabus of the school as well as examination of the institution are being managed by the School Education and the Examination Board, Ramnagar. Further, the payment of the salaries to the staff and teachers is being provided under Section 52(1) of the School Education Act, 2006, on the basis of government grant in aid. (26) In para 12 of the counter affidavit of respondent no. 2, it has been clarified that the Cantt. Girls Inter College is fully government grant in aid institution vide Government Notification dated 20.09.1995. The staff and teachers of the said institutions are getting benefit likewise the State Government employees and their services are in accordance with the services of State Government employee. The selection and salary of the staff of the institutions are being disbursed under the Government Orders alike other State Government employee. Cantt. Girls Inter College was established under the U.P. Act 1921. After the creation of State of Uttarakhand, the institution is being run under the School Education Act, 2006, by the State of Uttarakhand. The conclusion of the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2 is that the Cantt. Girls Inter College, Garhi Cantt., Dehradun is under the complete control of the State Government. (27) The contents of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2 have already been mentioned above in the body of this judgment. Likewise, the contents of the affidavits filed on behalf of other respondents being respondent no.1 and respondent no.3 have also been referred to, although in brief, in the aforesaid narration. (28) The provisions of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, have already been referred to above, while dealing with the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner, only to conclude that in an organization like Cantonment Board, the investigation may be entrusted to CBI only with the consent of the State Government in which that Cantonment Board or its employee is situate. (28) The provisions of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, have already been referred to above, while dealing with the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner, only to conclude that in an organization like Cantonment Board, the investigation may be entrusted to CBI only with the consent of the State Government in which that Cantonment Board or its employee is situate. Had it been an organization like Indian Military Academy or I.T.B.P., which is under the jurisdiction of Central Government, general powers have been published by Notification that the investigation relating to them can be entrusted to CBI, but here the case is different. The college in which the petitioner is posted is situated in Dehradun and he is not an employee of an organization which is under the jurisdiction of Central Government, therefore, the concurrence of the State Government, in the estimation of this Court, while entrusting the investigation to the CBI, was required, which has not been done in the instant case. (29) Still further, the respondent State has already made it clear that the Cantt. Girls Inter College is under the complete control of the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner is an employee of said college, which is government grant in aid institution, vide Government Notification dated 20.09.1995. (30) It has already been indicated by learned A.G.A. that in the FIR, which was registered with police station, Cantt., Dehradun against the petitioner, the Investigating Officer, after completion of investigation, has filed final report on 18.12.2007, being FR no. 22 of 2007. (31) A document has also been placed before this Court on behalf of the petitioner, which is a Government Order no. 104/A/R.T.I./11/1002 dated 14.07.2016, issued by Central Information Officer (Accounts), Cantt. Board, Meerut, which is an information obtained under Right to Information Act. [It is not admitted by learned counsel for respondent no. 3]. It is not addressed to the petitioner, but to someone else, but nevertheless issued by Cantonment Board, Meerut, even if not by Cantonment Board, Dehradun, that the Cantonment Board is a local self body under the provisions of Cantonment Board Act and the employees of the Cantonment Board are neither Central Government employees nor State Government employees, they are Cantonment Fund Employees under Cantonment Fund Servants Rules 1937. (32) The irresistible conclusion on the basis of aforesaid discussion is that the impugned FIR no. (32) The irresistible conclusion on the basis of aforesaid discussion is that the impugned FIR no. RC0072015 S0003 lodged against the petitioner, under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC, registered at police station, CBI, SPE, Dehradun cannot sustain in the eyes of law. (33) The criminal writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Impugned FIR no. RC0072015 S0003 lodged against the petitioner by the CBI, under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 468, 471 IPC, registered at police station, CBI, SPE, Dehradun is hereby quashed. It is, however, made clear that the CBI can investigate into the matter, but only with the concurrence of the State Government, if it is so advised.