JUDGMENT : [M.V. Muralidaran, J.] Heard Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Rarry, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 2. With the consent of either side, the writ petition is taken up for consideration of an interim order at the admission stage. 3. The prayer in the writ petition reads thus: “i) issue rule nisi and called for the records; ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or direction of the like nature including writ of certiorari for interfering with the impugned letter dt. 31/10/2022 issued by Deputy Registrar, Manipur Lokayukta; iii) issue a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other writ of the like nature prohibiting the Manipur Likayukta from taking further proceedings and consequential action in respect of the Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 and Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 in view of the action indicated by the warrant of search and seizure dt. 21/10/2022 and seizure memo dt. 24/10/2022 which has virtually circumvented the interim order dt. 29/09/2022 passed by this Hon’ble Court in WP(C) No.833 of 2022; iv) in the interim restrain the respondent No.2 from taking further proceedings and consequential action in respect of Complaint Case No.2 of 2022 and Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 or in the alternative direction for maintaining status quo in respect of the abovementioned complaint cases and consequential action pending disposal of the above referred writ petition AND v) pass any further order (s) direction(s) which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper to secure the ends of justice.” 4. Mr. H.S. Paonam, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner pressed for an interim order restraining the second respondent – Manipur Lokayukta from proceeding further in respect of the Complaint Case Nos.2 of 2020 and 5 of 2022 contending that in the name of ordering search and seizure in connection with the FIR bearing No.4(2)2022 CB-PS registered pursuant to the order passed in Complaint Case No.2 of 2020, the officials carried out an unholy action of collection of documents connected with the Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 which is the subject matter of W.P.(C) No.833 of 2022, wherein an interim order was passed by this Court restraining further proceedings; and, that such an ill-calculated action to circumvent the order of this Court warrants interference. 5. 5. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the intention of Manipur Lokayukta about collection and seizure of documents pertaining to Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 has the reflection in its warrant of search and seizure issued by the Secretary, Manipur Lokayukta with reference to the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by the Manipur Lokayukta while referring to Complaint Cases as well as the activities and the communication amongst the police personnel involved in the search and seizure proceedings selectively looking for documents pertaining to works concerning installation of 2x5 MVA, 33/11 KV sub-station along with associated 33 KV line and related civil works at Sagnu in Thoubal District on turnkey basis. Therefore, it is highly imperative for issuing an order putting on hold further proceedings of the Complaint Case Nos.2 of 2020 and 5 of 2022 pending disposal of the present writ petition. 6. On the other hand, by referring to Section 26 read with Sections 56 and 57 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014 [for short, “the said Act”], Mr. M. Rarry, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Manipur Lokayukta submitted that the second respondent has power and jurisdiction to authorise any agency to whom the investigation has been given to search and seize such documents and that the search and seizure warrant, in pursuance of the order dated 21.10.2022 of the second respondent, had been executed and the same has been returned after execution under the report of the investigating officer, the third respondent herein. 7. By relying upon the order of this Court dated 4.7.2022 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.161, 168, 171 and 225 of 2022, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that in the said order, this Court has made a clear cut observation that the Court did not find any material or ground for passing any interim order which may result in setting aside the criminal investigation against the petitioner and also interim order for staying the criminal investigation of the FIR No.4(02)2022 CB-PS under Section 7(b)/13 PC Act and Section 120-B/34 IPC. 8. Mr. 8. Mr. Rarry, the learned counsel for the second respondent urged that staying the proceedings of the investigation of the FIR No.4(02)2022 CB-PS will amount to interference of the criminal investigation conducted by the third respondent and that it is also no longer res integra that it is the prerogative of the third respondent to file his investigation report and no other authority even the High Court or Magistrate has no role to play. Thus, the learned counsel for the second respondent strongly opposed for grant of any interim order in this case. 9. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 10. As could be seen from the records, the petitioner was made as an accused in the Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 by one Thiyam Nirosh Singh alleging that the petitioner and other officials embezzled huge amount of public money from the fund for the project, construction of 2x1 MVA sub-station at Chakpi Karong along with the associated 33 KV line and related civil work on turnkey basis under NLCPR thereby causing major changes to the project for which they are not authorized and also by doing illegal activities in the name of executing the project. Upon hearing the parties, the second respondent passed an order directing for investigation by registration of FIR. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.168 of 2022 on the ground that the second respondent has no power to direct investigation when there is no finding of corruption against the petitioner. The petitioner was also made as respondent in another Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 made by one Ngangom Ibotombi Singh. Challenging the same, he has filed W.P.(C) No.833 of 2022 on the ground that the work in question in Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 was completed 7 years before and by virtue of Section 53 of the said Act, it cannot be investigated. In the said writ petition, this Court passed an interim stay thereby restraining the respondents therein from further proceeding with the Complaint Case No.5 of 2022. 11. According to the petitioner, Mr. H.S. Paonam submit that the second respondent in a strange manner issued warrant of search and seizure in the residence of the petitioner and his office premises in connection with Complaint Case No.2 of 2020. 11. According to the petitioner, Mr. H.S. Paonam submit that the second respondent in a strange manner issued warrant of search and seizure in the residence of the petitioner and his office premises in connection with Complaint Case No.2 of 2020. However, the investigating officer, instead of collecting documents in regard to Complaint Case No.2 of 2020, has collected documents related with Complaint Case No.5 of 2022. Such an act of the second respondent is not only in violation of the interim order passed in W.P.(C) No.833 of 2022, but also beyond the authority. According to the petitioner, in such a situation only, one Mr.Syed Nawas Khan, an Advocate has sought for information on the basis of warrant of search and seizure and the same were directed to be issued vide order dated 21.10.2022. Instead of providing the information, the Deputy Registrar of the second respondent ordered the learned counsel to appear before the Manipur Lokayukta to consider his application for providing information. Situated thus and being aggrieved by the arbitrary exercise of power by the second respondent, the petitioner has come forward to file the writ petition. 12. On the contrary, it is the plea of the second respondent that one Mr.Syed Nawas Khan, advocate, on behalf of the petitioner, filed an application on 31.10.2022 to the Secretary, Manipur Lokayukta requesting to furnish a certified copy of the information furnished by the informant in connection with Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 as reflected in the search and seizure warrant of the suspected place of deposit. The said application was taken on judicial side by the Manipur Lokayukta. When the said application was taken up on 4.11.2022, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment to show the provision of law for furnishing certified copy of information. On the said date, the learned counsel also informed the second respondent about the filing of the instant writ petition. 13. It is stated by the second respondent that when the application was taken up on 9.11.2022, Mr.A.Jankinath Sharma, learned counsel, who appeared along with Mr.Syed Nawaz Khan, counsel on record, submitted that he cannot find out any provision or any law which permits the furnishing of certified copy of the source information given by the informant in the course of investigation of criminal case. After recording the submission, Mr.A.Jankinath Sharma, learned counsel stated that he is not pressing the application filed by Mr.Syed Nawaz Khan on behalf of the petitioner Sarat Singh, Managing Director, Manipur State Power Corporation Limited and after getting confirmation from Mr.A.Jankinath Sharma, learned counsel, the second respondent rejected the application dated 31.10.2022 filed by Mr.Syed Nawaz Khan, advocate. However, on 10.11.2022, Mr.Jankinath Sharma, learned counsel, filed an application before the Deputy Registrar contrary to what was stated and recorded vide order dated 9.11.2022. 14. According to the second respondent, there is concealment of fact in the instant writ petition for getting interim order restraining the proceedings of Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 and investigation of FIR No.4(02)2022 CB-PS under Section 7(b)/13 PC Act and Section 120-B/34, 468, 471 IPC, inasmuch as, since the interim prayer has already been rejected by this Court on 4.7.2022, the present writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.938 of 2022, is in disguise for getting interim relief. 15. At this juncture, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 9.11.2022 when the application dated 31.10.2022 (Misc. Case No.13 of 2022) was listed before the second respondent, Mr.Syed Nawaz Khan, learned counsel, who filed the application due to his personal inconvenience requested one of his colleagues namely Mr.Jankinath Sharma to appear on his behalf and for making a prayer for deferring in view of moving of W.P.(C) No.938 of 2022. He would submit despite having knowledge about the filing of W.P.(C) No.938 of 2022, the second respondent insisted Mr.Jankinath Sharma to refer to the legal position and permissibility of filing such application. Whereupon Mr.Janikath Sharma submitted that he was appearing on behalf of Mr.Syed Nawaz Khan who made a request for making a prayer for deferring to some other date and he being no counsel for the petitioner and he is not aware of the case. However, in the evening of 9.11.2022 when the petitioner read the order, he came to know that the application dated 31.10.2022 was rejected by the second respondent According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the representing counsel has made a submission that he is not pressing the application. However, the second respondent, contrary to the representation made by the learned counsel, rejected the application. 16. When this Court perused the order dated 9.11.2022 passed in Misc. However, the second respondent, contrary to the representation made by the learned counsel, rejected the application. 16. When this Court perused the order dated 9.11.2022 passed in Misc. Case No.13 of 2022, it is seen that the second respondent though recorded the submission of the representing counsel on behalf of the petitioner that he is not pressing the application, at the result portion, the second respondent stated that “this application dated 31.102022 is rejected and in the result the present Misc. Case is disposed”. 17. For proper appreciation, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order dated 9.11.2022 are extracted herein below: “3. Mr. A. Jankinath Sharma, learned counsel frankly submits that he is not pressing the application dated 31.10.2022 filed by Mr. Syed Nawaz Khan, Advocate on behalf of Shri N. Sarat Singh, Managing Director, MSPCL. 4. This application dated 31.10.2022 is rejected and in the result the present Misc. Case is disposed of.” 18. Subsequent to the passing of the order dated 9.11.2022, the representing counsel has filed another application dated 10.11.2022 before the second respondent for recalling the order dated 9.11.2022 made in Misc. Case No.13 of 2022. After entertaining the application, on 10.11.2022, Mr.Jankinath Sharma was called before the second respondent where there has been long deliberation about his conduct in making submission before it by insisting that it was A. Jankinath Sharma who made the submission for not pressing the application and accordingly, returned the application dated 10.11.2022 stating that the application is unacceptable. 19. First of all, when the learned counsel, who is either counsel on record or representing counsel, submitted before the second respondent that he is not pressing a particular application, in the same mode only, the application has to be disposed of by the second respondent. The rejection order stated in paragraph 4 would show that as if the second respondent rejected the application on merits. In view of the above, the rejection order passed by the second respondent is unsustainable. That apart, the application submitted by Mr.Jankinath Sharma on 10.11.2022 was neither rejected after its registration as has been done in the earlier application of 31.10.2022, nor rejected at the counter and returning of the same to the applicant is unprecedented. In view of the above, the rejection order passed by the second respondent is unsustainable. That apart, the application submitted by Mr.Jankinath Sharma on 10.11.2022 was neither rejected after its registration as has been done in the earlier application of 31.10.2022, nor rejected at the counter and returning of the same to the applicant is unprecedented. In such circumstances, the arguments of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the consideration of the application dated 31.10.2022 and the subsequent order passed by the second respondent - Manipur Lokayukta having knowledge about the filing of the instant writ petition would make it very clear that Manipur Lokayukta intends to foreclose the hearing of the writ petition, at any cost, the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.833 of 2022 has not looked into, cannot be brushed aside. 20. A perusal of the records would reveal that FIR Case No.4(02)2022 on the file of Crime Branch Police Station was registered against 12 persons, including the petitioner. As per the order dated 7.2.2022, the second respondent appointed the third respondent – Shri Shrey Vats, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Kakching to investigate the Complaint Case No.2 of 2020. In the said Complaint Case, the third respondent submitted an application, being Misc. Case No.12 of 2022 on 20.10.2022 stating that documentary evidences which are missing are suspected to be secreted away and thus sought for permission before the second respondent to conduct search and seizure under Section 26(1) of the Act of 2014 at the residence of the petitioner or at the office of the Manipur State Power Company Limited. 21. The second respondent, by the order dated 21.10.2022, granted permission to the third respondent to conduct search and seizure at the residence of the petitioner and/or at the office of MSPCL and, after completion of search and seizure, directed to return the warrant. The third respondent was authorised to retain the documents and material exhibits if seized under Section 26(1) of the Act of 2014 in his safe custody. 22. The specific case of the petitioner is that the search and seizure was started from 24.10.2022 (Diwali and Ningol Chakkauba) and during search and seizure the petitioner and his family members co-operated the investigating officer. During search, a cash of Rs.2,77,500/- was seized. 22. The specific case of the petitioner is that the search and seizure was started from 24.10.2022 (Diwali and Ningol Chakkauba) and during search and seizure the petitioner and his family members co-operated the investigating officer. During search, a cash of Rs.2,77,500/- was seized. According to the petitioner, at the time of search and seizure, the team head by the third respondent was started looking for the documents relevant and connected with the work order for installation of 2x5 MVA, 33/11 KV sub-station along with associated 33 KV line and related civil works at Sugnu in Thoubal District on turnkey basis, which is not all connected and relevant with the issue involved in the Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 as well as the aforesaid FIR. Therefore, such an act of the third respondent is arbitrary and based upon the report of the third respondent, the second respondent cannot further proceed with the Complaint Case. 23. It appears that assailing the Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.833 of 2022 before this Court and on 29.09.2022, this Court passed the following interim order: “[1] Heard Mr. HS Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. [2] Mr. HS Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued the case that prima facie the compliant taken by the Manipur Lokayukta in complaint case No. 5 of 2022 is not at all maintainable only on the ground that as per the Section 53 of Manipur Lokayukta Act if the alleged occurrence was lapsed for 7(seven) years, the complaint should not be taken by the Lokayukta. Mr. H.S Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner further raised another ground that in order dated 23.09.2022, the Manipur Lokayukta has passed an order in which in para No.9 of order dated 23.09.2022 which read as follows: “Put up the case on 10.10.2022 for the personal appearance of (i) Administrative Secretary, Department of Power, Government of Manipur and (ii) Mrs. Orjubala Haorongbam, Deputy Secretary (power) Government of Manipur on 10.10.2022 at 11:00 am, However of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, the learned Lukayukta have no power to issue any notice for personal appearance of the Administrative office concerned. But by the order dated 23.09.2022 of the learned Manipur Lokayukta directly issued order for personal appearance of the Administrative officer. Orjubala Haorongbam, Deputy Secretary (power) Government of Manipur on 10.10.2022 at 11:00 am, However of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, the learned Lukayukta have no power to issue any notice for personal appearance of the Administrative office concerned. But by the order dated 23.09.2022 of the learned Manipur Lokayukta directly issued order for personal appearance of the Administrative officer. Therefore, once the complaint itself is not maintainable one before the Lokayukta and order dated 23.09.2022 is also not maintainable one. [3] Mr. Mr. Rarry, learned Standing counsel represented the petitioner has not served case papers to him before taking up the matter for admission since he is the standing counsel for the Manipur Lokayukta. Anyhow, Mr. H. S Paoanam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has given all the paper to Mr. M. Rarry, learned standing counsel in the open Court. [4] After gone through the writ petition and documents, Mr. M. Rarry, learned Standing counsel for the Manipur Lokayukta represented the compliant case is not taken for registration as on date by the Manipur Lokayukta and the very file of the writ petition is premature one. Therefore, for proper instruction from the Manipur Lokayukta and for filing counter affidavit, he seeks time. [5] Mr. HS Paonam learned senior counsel for the petitioner has produced certificate dated 14.08.2015 which read as follows: Handing over/Taking Over (Certificate) Date 14/08/2015 Project: Installation of 2x5 MVA, 33/11 kV SubStation along with the associated 33 KV line and related Civil works at Sugnu in Thoubal District on turn-key basis. Ref.: LOA No. 4/109/33KV/SUG/13- ED(PURCH)/706-17, dated 02/07/2014. Name of Line: Associated 33 kV transmission line. With reference to the above mentioned LOA/Work Order, the construction activities of the associated 33 kV transmission line of the above project has been completed by tapping from existing 33 kV transmission line from New Chayang to Joupi in looping in — looping out (LILO) configuration by M/s Shyama Power India Limited, Gurgaon, and the line has been successfully tested and commissioned on 14/08/2015 in presence of MSPCL officials. The completed transmission line facility is taken over by the Dy. General Manager, TD-IIl, Manipur State Power Company Limited (MSPCL) on this day i.e., 14/08/2015. ‘For and behalf of Manipur State Power Company Limited For and Behalf of Shyama Power India Limited. The completed transmission line facility is taken over by the Dy. General Manager, TD-IIl, Manipur State Power Company Limited (MSPCL) on this day i.e., 14/08/2015. ‘For and behalf of Manipur State Power Company Limited For and Behalf of Shyama Power India Limited. DGM, TD-III (taken over) Project manager (handing over) [6] As per the above certificate dated 14.08.2015 issued by Shyama Power India Limited which was handing over/taking over on 14.08.2015, it is made clear that as per the Section 53 of the Manipur Lokayukta Act, 2014, the complaint is time barred one. Apart from this the learned Lokayukta has no right to pass any order for the personal appearance officers concerned as ordered 23.09.2022. [7] Therefore, prima facie of the petitioner is made out the case before this Court. [8] Accordingly, this writ petition is admitted. [9] Notice to the respondents. Since Mr. Rarry, learned counsel takes notice for the Lokayukta, no formal notice is required. [10] Post this matter on 20.10.2022. [11] Till such time, there shall be an order of interim stay of the order dated 23.09.2022 passed by learned Manipur Lokayukta. [12] Print the name of Mr. Rarry in the cause list.” 24. It also appears that on 21.10.2022, this Court passed the following order: “Mr. N. Bipin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that one of the conducting counsel for the petitioner is my relative and accordingly, a prayer is made for posting this matter before another Bench. Learned counsel however, submitted that earlier interim order may be extended till the next date. Mr. M. Rarry, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the respondent No. 2 has already filed an application for vacation of the interim order. Since this matter cannot be taken up by this Court, list this case before another Bench on 21st October, 2022. Till then, earlier interim order shall continue.” 25. Thus, it is clear that there is an interim order in regard to search and seizure of the documents relevant and connected with the work order involved in Complaint Case No.5 of 2022. 26. Till then, earlier interim order shall continue.” 25. Thus, it is clear that there is an interim order in regard to search and seizure of the documents relevant and connected with the work order involved in Complaint Case No.5 of 2022. 26. At this stage, by referring to paragraph 10 of the writ petition, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents seized in the seizure memo are not all connected with the Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 and the FIR referred above, but connected with the Complaint Case No.5 of 2022. He also submitted that the work order involved in Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 is in relation to the construction of 2x1 MVA, 33/11 KV sub-station at Chakpikarong along with the associated 33 KV line and the related civil works on turnkey basis under NLCPR, whereas the work order which is the subject matter of Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 is regarding installation of 2x5 MVA, 33/11 KV sub-station along with associated 33 KV line and related civil works at Sugnu in Thoubal District on turnkey basis. Thus, the argument of learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the seized documents as reflected in the seizure are not at all connected with the Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 and are involved in connection with Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 and in fact, the third respondent and his team exceeded their limit and that the intention of the search and seizure carried out by the agency of Manipur Lokayukta as inferred from the body language of the search team as noticed by the officials present during the search and seizure proceedings that the team has come to collect materials and documents involved in Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 which has been put a restrain by the interim order of this Court dated 29.9.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.833 of 2022. 27. Prima facie, the aforesaid argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is supported by material proof and the same has not been controverted and/or disproved by the second respondents. 27. Prima facie, the aforesaid argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is supported by material proof and the same has not been controverted and/or disproved by the second respondents. Since the third respondent searched and seized the documents which are not related to the Complaint Case No.2 of 2020, to know about the details of seizure, the petitioner prayed the second respondent by filing an application dated 31.10.2022 for furnishing the certified copy of the proceedings and the orders passed by the second respondent. 28. It appears that, as rightly argued by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, in the name of ordering search and seizure in connection with the FIR registered pursuant to the order passed in Complaint Case No.2 of 2020, the third respondent carried out collection of documents connected with the Complaint Case No.5 of 2022. Such an action of the investigation officer and his team is against the interim order granted in W.P.(C) No.833 of 2022. Further, the non-furnishing of the information as sought by the petitioner and issuance of warrant of search and seizure is clear departure from the accepted norms of furnishing an information to an individual and the accused in the proceedings, inasmuch as violation of principles of natural justice. 29. At this stage, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the investigation is on advanced stage and the same cannot be stalled and that there is concealment of fact in the instant case for getting an order restraining the proceeding of the Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 and the investigation in FIR No.4(2)2022 CB-PS and that the interim prayer has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 4.7.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No.161 of 2022 etc. batch. 30. This Court, by the order dated 4.7.2022 in W.P.(C) No.161 of 2022 etc. batch. 30. This Court, by the order dated 4.7.2022 in W.P.(C) No.161 of 2022 etc. batch, has passed the following order: “[20] On careful consideration of the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this court is of the tentative view that the Manipur Lokayukta was not justified in insisting to furnish the reasons for not accepting such recommendations since the State Government is yet to take a decision with regard to the said recommendation.” In the said order, this Court, finally observed as under: “In view of the above quoted decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and as the State Government is yet to take a decision with regard to the recommendations of the Manipur Lokayukta for not allowing the petitioners to continue in their respective official capacity in the Manipur State Power Corporation Limited till the completion of the investigation, this court hope and trust that the Manipur Lokayukta will not insist or direct the authorities of the State Government to implement or carried out such recommendations. It is, however, made clear that the above observations made by this court should not be construed as an interim order restraining the State Government from taking a decision as to whether the State Government will accept the aforesaid recommendations of the Lokayukta as mandated under Section 32(2) of the Lokayukta Act. It is hoped and trust that the State Government will take a decision with regard to the aforesaid recommendations of the Manipour Lokayukta as mandated under Section 32(2) of the Lokayukta Act as early as possible.” 31. Thus, on a perusal of the prayer portion in W.P.(C) Nos.161, 168, 171 and 225 of 2022, it is clear that the reliefs sought for in the aforesaid writ petitions are entirely different to that of the prayer now sought for in W.P.(C) No.938 of 2022. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot come to the conclusion that the rejection of the interim relief in W.P.(C) No.161 of 2022 etc. batch dated 4.7.2022 is disentitle the petitioner from seeking interim order in the instant writ petition. 32. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot come to the conclusion that the rejection of the interim relief in W.P.(C) No.161 of 2022 etc. batch dated 4.7.2022 is disentitle the petitioner from seeking interim order in the instant writ petition. 32. The grant or refusal of the interim order is within the discretion of the Court based upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the rejection of the interim order early by this Court dated 4.7.2022 will not prevent this Court in considering the interim prayer restraining the second respondent from taking further proceedings and consequential action in respect of the Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 and Complaint Case No.5 of 2022. At the same time, the investigating team cannot search and seize the documents not related to the Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 for which search and seizure warrant was issued. As stated supra, prima facie, the petitioner has established that the search and seizure of the documents related to the Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 was made by the third respondent during search, which act cannot be endorsed by this Court in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 33. In a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters, while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed. This Court is of the view that prima facie case for grant of interim order has been established by the petitioner and this Court has also set out brief reasons for passing the interim order in the earlier paragraphs of this order. 34. The law is well settled that an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quash petition/writ petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. 34. The law is well settled that an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quash petition/writ petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent Court. In the case on hand, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in Cril. Misc. (AB) Case No.5 of 2022. 35. The interim order prayed for by the petitioner requires consideration of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, if any to the petitioner. As stated supra, the prayer made by the petitioner brings out particular facts coupled with supporting materials which would enable this Court to evaluate the balance of convenience, irreparable loss and prima facie case of the petitioner. 36. In the aforesaid factual scenario, when this Court analysed the prayer of the petitioner for grant of interim order, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has established a prima facie case for granting interim order of staying the further proceedings and the consequential action in respect of the Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 and Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 and the balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioner and in case the order restraining the second respondent from taking further proceedings in the aforementioned two Complaint Cases is not passed, definitely the petitioner would put to not only irreparable loss and damage but also it will tarnish his image and also in view of letter dated 17.2.2022, whereby the Secretary (Power), Government of Manipur observed that it is not feasible to accept the recommendations of the second respondent dated 7.2.2022 at present due to administrative reasons under Section 32(2) of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013, in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders: (i) The writ petition is admitted. (ii) Issue notice to the respondents, returnable in four weeks. The petitioner is also permitted to take private service to the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. (ii) Issue notice to the respondents, returnable in four weeks. The petitioner is also permitted to take private service to the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. (iii) Mr.Rarry, learned counsel, takes notice on behalf of the second respondent – Manipur Lokayukta. No formal notice is required. (iv) Let the writ petition be listed on 20.12.2022. (v) Till such time, the second respondent is restrained from taking further proceedings and consequential action in respect of the Complaint Case No.2 of 2020 and Complaint Case No.5 of 2022 pending on its file, which were initiated against the petitioner.