JUDGMENT : AJIT SINGH, J. 1. This public interest litigation has been filed by 3(three) petitioners praying for conducting investigation to Dispur Police Station Case No. 1498/2015 either by the Central Bureau of Investigation or by a Special Investigation Team. 2. The Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority selected one Louis Berger International, a Multinational Company based in the United States of America, to manage water supply facilities in the city of Guwahati. At present 3(three) water supply projects are going on in the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority, one of which is Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) funded project for the South-west region, the other is Japan International Cooperation Agency (JAICA) funded project for north and south central division and the third one is an Asian Development Bank (ADB) funded project for south-east region of Guwahati. All these 3(three) projects are for providing round-the-clock supply of water and the Louis Berger International is one of the consultant companies in those projects, which owns the consultancy project of the 'Restoration and Conservation of Bharalu and Kalong'. 3. The said company designed and managed the construction of new water work facilities. It also evaluated and updated the existing facilities, including intake sites, water treatment plants, raw water transmission mains and pumps, clear water transmission mains and pumps, reservoirs, water distribution networks and water testing laboratories. 4. However, there were some media reports that the said company adopted illegal means for obtaining those projects in the State of Goa and Guwahati resorting to bribery to various government agencies and as such, it was prosecuted by the United States Justice Department, for violation of anti-bribery provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1997. The petitioners could collect some information regarding the said development from the website of Justice Department of the United States of America which has been appended to this petition as Annexure-C and reads as follows:- "The company has operated in India since 1998 and had offices in Gurgaon, Mumbai, Chennai and Hyderabad. Along with several consortium partners, the company won two water development projects in Goa and Guwahati. The company paid bribes to win both of those contracts. The bribe money was disguised as payments to vendors for services that had never actually been rendered. Along with several consortium partners, the company won two water development projects in Goa and Guwahati. The company paid bribes to win both of those contracts. The bribe money was disguised as payments to vendors for services that had never actually been rendered. The Company through its employees and agents and its consortium partners kept track of the bribe payments by circulating a spread-sheet amongst themselves showing the proportionate share of each bribe that he had paid to the foreign officials overseeing their work on the Goa and Guwahati projects." 5. It is stated by the petitioners that the penalty of 17,100,000 dollars was imposed on the company as it chose not to contest the admissibility of the statements of facts during prosecution and an agreement was executed deferring the prosecution till the payment of penalty is made. 6. The petitioners lodged a first information report in the Dispur Police Station which is registered as Dispur Police Station case No. 1498/2015 under section 7/13 (i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 relating to the said incident on the basis of the information received by them from the aforesaid website. The petitioners? grievance is that the case has not been effectively investigated as it should have been and as such they have prayed for an independent investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation or by a special team. It may be noted that Home and Political Department, Government of Assam, also lodged a complaint to the CID, Assam, on 17/8/2015 which was registered as CID Police Station Case No. 41/2015 for offences under Sections 120B/406/420 of Indian Penal Code read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. When the petitioners lodged the case in Dispur Police Station, the same was amalgamated with the CID Police Station Case No. 41/2015. 7. The senior Superintendent of Police, CID, Assam and the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home and Political Department, have filed their respective affidavits informing this Court about present status of the case from which it transpires that the investigation team recorded the statements of some witnesses and also requested the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, to issue of Letter Rogatory, enabling them to conduct further investigation in the United States of America and to collect evidence from foreign witnesses, documents etc. The same has already been issued by the Court on 04/05/2016 which has been forwarded to the competent authority of the United States of America on 10/5/2016 through proper channel. 8. On perusal of the records, we found that the investigation needs to be accelerated. We also noted that although the petitioners have prayed for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation, the same was not made a party. Therefore, as per our direction, the Central Bureau of Investigation has been impleaded as respondent. 9. During the course of hearing, investigation progress sheet was produced in the court. We have meticulously gone through the same and found that after lodging of the first information report in the year 2015, the statements of some of the witnesses were recorded within four month of lodging the same. But thereafter, the process became slow. The Letter Rogatory was issued by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, on 04/05/2016 and the same was sent to the Assistant Director, International Police Co-operation Cell, CBI HQ, New Delhi on 10/05/2016. But it transpires from the record that no substantial development has taken place subsequently. There has been series of communications including letters and e-mails at various levels and from 10/05/2016 till date no substantial investigation has been carried out. It is astonishing to note that even video conference with the counterparts of the investigating authority in the United States of America has not also taken place. There is hardly any material to show that there have been sincere efforts on the part of the authorities to send a team of investigators to the United States of America for examination of witnesses and to collect evidence and the investigation apparently appears to have been confined to documents only. It was incumbent upon the state machinery to ensure proper, effective and unbiased investigation into the allegations made in the first information report. This court totally fails to understand as to why the investigation has been done at such a snail's pace where prompt and effective action was wholly warranted more so when the allegations involve payment of bribe by the said company to various government officials to the tune of Rs. 6 crores approximately to win contract in Guwahati valued at Rs. 1452 crores. 10. 6 crores approximately to win contract in Guwahati valued at Rs. 1452 crores. 10. It is now well settled by the Supreme Court that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court has the power to direct an investigation by the C.B.I., but the power can be exercised only in cases where there is sufficient material to come to the prima facie conclusion that there is a need of such investigation (See Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya, AIR 2002 SC 2225 ; Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409 ). 11. As enumerated herein above, it is crystal clear that the investigating agency has not investigated the case in right earnest and has been conducting the same in a partisan manner. The mystery of such allegations involving misappropriation of enormous public money must not haunt the people of the state indefinitely and it must come to a logical end at the earliest. Criminal Investigation Department (CID) is under the State Government and since high ranking officials are involved in awarding the contract after taking huge amount of bribe, we are of the view that Criminal Investigation Department is not in a position to act independently to bring the investigation to a fair and logical conclusion in accordance with law. In this background, we are of the view that the investigation of the case should not be conducted by any investigating agency of the State Government and there is a need for an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. 12. We, accordingly direct the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation to take over the investigation of the case in question from the CID and bring the investigation to its logical conclusion in accordance with law. The case diary shall be submitted by the CID in a sealed cover to the custody of Registrar General of this Court, who shall hand over the same, after completing necessary formalities, to an officer authorized to receive it by the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation. We also direct the State Government and its police to cooperate fully with the Central Bureau of Investigation in the investigation of the case. 13. With the above directions, the petition is allowed.