ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Bangaluru in Writ Petition No. 9781 of 2017 dated 24.03.2017 whereby the High Court summarily dismissed the Public Interest Litigation on the sole ground noted in paragraph 3 of the impugned order that the issues raised in the complaint which are also referred to in the Writ Petition have been closed by the Lokayuktha whilst accepting the report of Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat, Chamrajanagara. No other reason is noted in the impugned order. 4. The grievance of the appellants is that the report of the Lokayuktha had adverted to the report submitted by Ombudsman and also the fact that the Ombudsman could not make full enquiry for want of cashbook, vouchers for the bills of material and other documents in connection with complaint; yet the Lokayuktha hastened to close the complaint by referring to the report of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Chamrajanagara. Further, in the complaint as well as in the Writ Petition, allegations have been made against the officers associated with the office of the Chief Executive Officer and therefore such a report cannot be accepted as a gospel truth. Moreover, the Ombudsman report adverted to by the Lokayuktha in paragraph 115 of his report, has taken note of the irregularities mentioned in the complaint as can be seen from paragraph 6 onwards thereof, at page 46 to 49 of the SLP paperbook. 5. We do not wish to express any opinion on the correctness of the aforementioned grievance made by the appellants. For, we have no manner of doubt that these matters ought to have been considered by the High Court in the first place. 6. As the order impugned in this appeal rests only on one count, which, in our opinion, was not sufficient to dispose of the Petition, therefore, we are inclined to relegate the parties before the High Court for reconsideration of the writ petition afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law. 7. 6. As the order impugned in this appeal rests only on one count, which, in our opinion, was not sufficient to dispose of the Petition, therefore, we are inclined to relegate the parties before the High Court for reconsideration of the writ petition afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law. 7. Learned ASG appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation submits that taking the averments in the Public Interest Litigation filed by the appellants before the High Court as it is, it is seen that no grievance has been made against the local State Police establishment so as to transfer the investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (Central Agency). Even this aspect can be considered by the High Court keeping in mind the exposition of this Court on which the respondents would want to rely. 8. We also place on record the submission made by the counsel for the State that there is sufficient material to dispel the apprehensions and doubt entertained by the appellants and adverted to by the Ombudsman in his report (to which reference has been made by Lokayuktha in paragraph 115 of his report). Besides, no allegation has been made against the Chief Executive Officer as such. Resultantly, the report submitted by him cannot be ignored in toto. 9. As aforesaid, these are matters to be considered by the High Court on its own merits after hearing the parties. 10. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order is set aside and the Writ Petition is restored to the file to its original number before the High Court for being decided afresh. It will be open to the parties to file affidavit(s) and relevant documents before the High Court, if so advised. 11. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 12. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.