JUDGMENT : ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J. 1. By way of this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, appellant- original applicant has challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Application No. 2 of 2022 in Special Civil Application No. 14430 of 2021 dated 6.7.2022. 2. Background of facts which has led to filing of this appeal is that applicant- original petitioner was facing an investigation into affairs of Gujarat NRE Coke Limited (GNCL) pursuant to an order dated 28.12.2018 passed by Deputy Director, Ministry of Company Affairs in view of Section 212(2)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013. In response to that, on 15.3.2019, respondent informed the Liquidator of GNCL that it had been directed by the Central Government to investigate into the affairs of GNCL under Section 212(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013. Subsequently, respondent through correspondence solicited information from Liquidator which was duly and promptly sent by Compliance Officer of GNCL and according to the appellant, all information regarding GNCL was provided by Liquidator. According to appellant, he has fully cooperated with the said process by sending information documents and relevant records which were within his control. Appellant has stated that with a view to ensure that investigation can be completed in a timely manner, he supplied annual reports, books of accounts, balance-sheets, etc., as stated in paragraph 2.4. 3. It has been further submitted that SFIO Team consisting of Officers mentioned in paragraph 2.5 also visited the premises of the company at 22 Camac Street, Kolkata from 26th to 28th August 2009 and also from back-up of office by taking out Fact Server and hard-disks of laptops of various key employees having data volume of around 3 Trillion Bytes using their own Gazettes. Further, on 30.9.2019, Kolkata office of SFIO was handed 1 Trillion Byte External Hard Disc containing e-mail backups of all employees having data size of 816 GB. 4. It is further the case of the appellant that in an around August 2019, SFIO summed one Mr. Pawan Kumar Agrawal (the then Chief Commercial Officer of GNCL), Mr. P.R. Kannan (former Chief Financial Officer of GNCL being engaged in different roles from 2004 to 2015), Mr. Sajjan Kumar Taylor and Mr. 4. It is further the case of the appellant that in an around August 2019, SFIO summed one Mr. Pawan Kumar Agrawal (the then Chief Commercial Officer of GNCL), Mr. P.R. Kannan (former Chief Financial Officer of GNCL being engaged in different roles from 2004 to 2015), Mr. Sajjan Kumar Taylor and Mr. Bishwanath Agarwal both ex-employees of GNCL who also left the company prior to 10 years were also summoned and they all traveled to New Delhi and met to SFIO officials and responded to all questions and queries raised by them. Later on, further information was also sought from GNCL on 11.11.2019 and this requisite material which was sent was also arranged by present appellant. But, according to appellant, despite all this, summons came to be issued on 20.11.2019, asking the appellant to remain personally present at New Delhi office on 26.11.2019, which was promptly attended. Presence of the appellant was also recorded and after recording his statement, was again asked to appear on 4.12.2019 and later on, for new further dates, which without any demur responded to by the appellants. 5. It is the grievance of the appellant that despite all this cooperation having been extended and material having been supplied, respondent authority again sought further information, vide letter dated 25.6.2020. But, on account of lock-down due to Covid-19 crisis, appellant could not appear in person. It is the case of the appellant that during the course of investigation by SFIO, all information large in number was provided, even detailed statements of all key managerial personnel were also recorded, but still harassment continued. So much so that Gujarat NRC Coke Ltd. was subjected to thorough multiple forensic audits, monthly current audits, but during these audits also, no discrepancy or any incident of fraud came to be pointed out. Even though accounts of GNCL have been labeled as NPA since 2013 by consortium of more than 15 banks, none of the banks have ever found any incident of fraud in the affairs of GNCL. But, on account of some circumstances beyond control, like external factors, including global financial crisis, general downturn in steel industry, prices of coking coal etc., financial crunch took place with the company. But, on account of some circumstances beyond control, like external factors, including global financial crisis, general downturn in steel industry, prices of coking coal etc., financial crunch took place with the company. It is contended respondent ransacked the office and residence of the appellant and in his absence without any prior notice, suddenly on 19.1.2021, in the middle of Covid-19 pandemic, a team from SFIO, comprising of about 12 to 15 personnel led by officers, started mishandling the staff in the office. Even raid took place at Kolkata office, i.e. at 22 Camac Street, Block-C, 5th Floor, Kolkata and police guards have been placed without letting anyone to enter or exit without permission. Even residence has also been visited without prior intimation and in the absence of the appellant on 21.1.2021 and this again has terribly hurt the religious sentiments of the appellant and family and this has taken place despite all information having been supplied. 6. On account of this unilateral action of authority, appellant was constrained to move a writ application in Hon’ble Kolkala High Court being W.P.A. No. 3607 of 2021 for the reliefs stated therein and same is pending for adjudication. 7. To respond to the aforesaid writ petition filed in Hon’ble Kolkata High Court, authority has filed an affidavit-in-reply in an around April 2021, affirmed by one Mr. Manoj Sharma and thereby a justification was shown as to why appellant was summoned to appear before the Investigating Team. This, according to appellant, is misusing and abusing the power vested in the authority. Though appellant has cooperated fully, again he was summoned on 2.2.2021 asking him to appear before the authority on 5.2.2021 at New Delhi, without disclosing reason as to why his presence is required. 8. At this juncture, by indicating that Covid-19 pandemic was prevailing right from March 2020 and since appellant was suffering from ailment relating to his respiratory system, he was advised to have strict home quarantine at his home. On apprehending that his request would not be considered, appellant preferred a writ petition before this Court, being Special Civil Application No. 2953 of 2021, inter alia praying for a direction to the respondent to allow him to appear virtually through video link. 9. On apprehending that his request would not be considered, appellant preferred a writ petition before this Court, being Special Civil Application No. 2953 of 2021, inter alia praying for a direction to the respondent to allow him to appear virtually through video link. 9. It is submitted by appellant that with the hope that Covid-19 situation would improve by April 2021, said petition was not pressed by appellant and it came to be disposed of, vide order dated 17.3.2021, and by virtue of said order, appellant was required to remain present before authority on 15.4.2021 and was simultaneously required to file an undertaking to that effect. 10. It is the case of the appellant that in or around April 2021, unfortunately, second wave of Covid-19 pandemic erupted, in which entire nation was gripped with a situation and on account of this sudden change, appellant was required to move an application seeking modification of order dated 17.3.2021. Said application was registered as Misc. Civil Application No. 1 of 2021 in Special Civil Application No. 2953 of 2021, which came to be allowed vide order dated 15.4.2021. Since the situation did not improve, appellant was again constrained to prefer another application, being Misc. Civil Application No. 2 of 2021, seeking modification of the order dated 15.4.2021, which came to be disposed of on 27.8.2021, as having become infructuous. As soon as said Misc. Civil Application No. 2 of 2021 came to be disposed of, respondent called upon the appellant to remain present at the office of New Delhi on 15.9.2021 at 10.30 p.m. But, since it was difficult for the applicant to appear in person, vide email dated 3.9.2021, a request was made to allow the appellant to appear virtually through video link, but said request has been turned down vide communication dated 10.9.2021 and as such, appellant was constrained to move a substantive petition again, being Special Civil Application No. 13148 of 2021 inter alia praying to allow the appellant to appear virtually through video link and same is pending for adjudication. 11. 11. It is further the case of the appellant that in the affidavit, which has been filed before Kolkata High Court by respondent authority, presence was not required for examining him, but for production of certain documents which are not in possession since liquidation order came to be passed on 18.1.2018 and the company affairs have been in the hands of liquidator. Since presence is required mainly for the purpose of seeking necessary documents, same in a situation can be taken care of, as indicated above, and as such, a request was made through email dated 25.6.2022 to allow the appellant to appear virtually. But, again, without assigning any reason, said request also was turned down vide communication dated 27.6.2022 and as such, since authority is bent upon securing presence of the present appellant instead of allowing him to appear through video link, appellant was again constrained to prefer a Civil Application for direction, being Civil Application No. 2 of 2022 in pending petition, i.e. Special Civil Application No. 14430 of 2021, with following reliefs: (A) To direct the respondent to allow the applicant to remain present before it virtually through Video Conferencing on 11-07-2022 in view of his adverse medical condition, his age and underlying co-morbidities and risks associated with travel during the present COVID-19 situation and considering that he has already appeared personally before the respondent 4 times in the past on 26-11-2019, 04-12-2019, 13-12-2019 and 27-12-2019 and recorded his statements. (B) By way of interim relief, be pleased to restrain the respondent for taking any coercive steps against the applicant for not appearing before it physically on 11-07-2022 or thereafter, pending hearing and disposal of this application. (C) To grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper in the special circumstances of the case. 12. To substantiate said request, rather the relief sought for in Civil Application, several medical papers were produced and attached to the Civil Application and thereby requested learned Single Judge to entertain the application and grant the relief(s) as prayed for in Civil Application. 12. To substantiate said request, rather the relief sought for in Civil Application, several medical papers were produced and attached to the Civil Application and thereby requested learned Single Judge to entertain the application and grant the relief(s) as prayed for in Civil Application. However, instead of considering said circumstance, learned Single Judge vide order dated 6.7.2022, was pleased to reject the Civil Application by permitting the authority to take appropriate steps if appellant chooses not to appear on 11.7.2022 and it is this order dated 6.7.2022 which is made the subject matter of present Letters Patent Appeal before us. 13. Learned senior advocate Mr. Percy Kavina assisted by learned advocate Mr. Vivek B. Gupta appearing for appellant has vehemently contended that this insistence of presence of appellant at New Delhi office is absolutely irrational, arbitrary, illogical and would tantamount to harassment to the appellant. Practically, after 5 years, to summon the appellant to appear itself is a sheer harassment, especially when there are no allegations of fraud or any fraudulent practice adopted by the appellant and as such, he contends learned Single Judge has erred in passing the impugned order. 14. It has been contended by learned senior advocate Mr. Kavina that if the relief prayed for is granted, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the public and there is a genuine reason for the appellant not to appear in person at New Delhi after traveling in a situation where still Covid-19 pandemic effect is subsisting. In fact, by pointing out necessary medical papers attached to the application, it has been vehemently contended that learned Single Judge ought to have considered these genuine difficulties of the present appellant and therefore, too technical approach is adopted by learned Single Judge, hence order requires to be interfered with. 15. Learned senior advocate Mr. Kavina has submitted that appellant is not remotely inclined not to cooperate with the investigation process. Had it been so, throughout upto this period, he would not have cooperated, would not have supplied all these relevant documents in detail, nor would have appeared in past as well and therefore, now at this stage, when authority is inclined to have necessary documents only, presence of appellant is not much required, especially when the appellant is ready and willing to face process through video link by virtually appearing before the authority. 16. Learned senior advocate Mr. 16. Learned senior advocate Mr. Kavina has submitted that word ‘presence’ even as contemplated under Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has also been analyzed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and recording of evidence by way of video conferencing is also considered as just and proper and for that purpose, to strengthen his submission and to reiterate the request of allowing the appellant to appear in virtual mode, learned senior counsel has placed reliance upon a decision delivered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharasthra vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai, (2003) 4 SCC 601 . Yet, another decision of recent time has also been pressed into service by learned senior advocate, which is delivered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of In Re: Guidelines for Court Functioning Through Videoconferencing During Covid-19 Pandemic, (2020) 6 SCC 686 and the request has been reiterated that relief sought for in Civil Application ought to have been granted by learned Single Judge and that having not been done, impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and as such, he has prayed to quash the impugned order and to allow the Civil Application filed before the learned Single Judge. 17. Learned senior advocate Mr. Kavina has submitted that the undertaking previously which was given was under a bona-fide belief that situation of Covid-19 will improve, but unfortunately, same having not been occurred, learned Single Judge ought not to have taken too technical view of the matter and permitted the authority to take appropriate steps of failure of appellant to appear in person. According to Mr. Kavina, while passing impugned order, learned Single Judge has adhered to technicality instead of taking a pragmatic view and genuine difficulties, which having been ignored, the order requires to be interfered with. It has been submitted that earlier petition was withdrawn since there was no date given for appearing and as such, at that point of time, the petition might have been withdrawn, said circumstance could not have been used against the appellant. That being so, the order in question deserves to be quashed and set aside by consequently granting the reliefs as prayed for in the appeal. No further submissions have been made. 18. That being so, the order in question deserves to be quashed and set aside by consequently granting the reliefs as prayed for in the appeal. No further submissions have been made. 18. Having heard learned senior advocate and having perused the material on record, we may first of all indicate that interrogation is an effective tool available with an Investigator and it is indefeasible right and domain of an inquiring authority to secure through such process of investigation material or evidence that may be gathered. Personal interrogation will help out the authority to unearth the truth especially when either direct evidence or connecting link is not readily available or to examine modus operandi of alleged activity for which investigation is desired. Of-course, in present times, Courts are also relying upon video conferencing for conducting of proceedings of the Court, but the investigation or interrogation of a person though possible, through video conference would lose much of its effectiveness when the person concerned is sitting at a far away place from investigator/ inspector. During the course of examination or investigation, Investigator may put several questions one after the other depending upon the response given by the person while watching his demeanour. A trained inspector may even be able to assess the veracity of answers from the manner of person blinks his eye or signs or movement of his feet. At times, during investigation, in case any disclosure is made, which has to lead to some kind of recovery of some evidence or material, person may facilitate outcome and as such, Inspector cannot be deprived of such important means to elicit information pertaining to commission of any act in which investigation is carried out. Video conferencing may not be as effective as physical interrogation or inquiry, especially when case happens to be such where person under investigation has played a role in the backstage and therefore, for effective investigation, at times, personal presence is expedient. 19. Recently, almost similar issue has copped up before Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India and Others, (2020) 14 SCC 12 , in which also, permission was sought to join in the investigation by video conferencing and in that context, Hon’ble the Apex Court has made certain observations which we deem it proper to quote hereunder: 47. As we have observed earlier, the petitioner requested for and consented to the transfer of the investigation of the FIR from the Police Station Sadar, District Nagpur City to the NM Joshi Marg Police Station in Mumbai. He did so because an earlier FIR lodged by him at that police station was under investigation. The petitioner now seeks to preempt an investigation by the Mumbai police. The basis on which the petitioner seeks to achieve this is untenable. An accused person does not have a choice in regard to the mode or manner in which the investigation should be carried out or in regard to the investigating agency. The line of interrogation either of the petitioner or of the CFO cannot be controlled or dictated by the persons under investigation/ interrogation. In P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 Justice R. Banumathi speaking for a two judge Bench of this Court held that: “66…. there is a well-defined and demarcated function in the field of investigation and its subsequent adjudication. It is not the function of the court to monitor the investigation process so long as the investigation does not violate any provision of law. It must be left to the discretion of the investigating agency to decide the course of investigation. If the court is to interfere in each and every stage of the investigation and the interrogation of the accused, it would affect the normal course of investigation. It must be left to the investigating agency to proceed in its own manner in interrogation of the accused, nature of questions put to him and the manner of interrogation of the accused. (Emphasis supplied) This Court held that so long as the investigation does not violate any provision of law, the investigation agency is vested with the discretion in directing the course of investigation, which includes determining the nature of the questions and the manner of interrogation. In adopting this view, this Court relied upon its earlier decisions in State of Bihar vs. P.P. Sharma and Dukhishyam Benupani, Asst. Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) vs. Arun Kumar Bajoria in which it was held that the investigating agency is entitled to decide the venue, the timings and the questions and the manner of putting such questions during the course of the investigation. 48. Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) vs. Arun Kumar Bajoria in which it was held that the investigating agency is entitled to decide the venue, the timings and the questions and the manner of putting such questions during the course of the investigation. 48. In CBI vs. Niyamavedi represented by its Member K. Nandini, Advocate, Justice Sujata V. Manohar, speaking for a three judge Bench of this Court held that the High Court should have: “4………..refrained from making any comments on the manner in which investigation was being conducted by the CBI, looking to the fact that the investigation was far from complete. This Court observed that: “4…………. Any observations which may amount to interference in the investigation, should not be made. Ordinarily the Court should refrain from interfering at a premature stage of the investigation as that may derail the investigation and demoralise the investigation. Of late, the tendency to interfere in the investigation is on the increase and courts should be wary of its possible consequences. This Court adopted the position that courts must refrain from passing comments on an ongoing investigation to extend to the investigating agencies the requisite liberty and protection in conducting a fair, transparent and just investigation.” 20. In addition to the aforesaid view, a perusal of the statutory provision contained under Companies Act, 2013, where-under an Inspector is invested with a power to direct any person to appear before him personally, of-course with proper safeguards of procedural requirement. But, then this provision has also permitted in case of necessity to some of a person to appear in person for purpose of inquiry or investigation. We may quote relevant extract of the provisions of Section 217 hereunder: 217. Procedure, powers, etc. But, then this provision has also permitted in case of necessity to some of a person to appear in person for purpose of inquiry or investigation. We may quote relevant extract of the provisions of Section 217 hereunder: 217. Procedure, powers, etc. of inspectors: (1) It shall be the duty of all officers and other employees and agents including the former officers, employees and agents of a company which is under investigation in accordance with the provisions contained in this Chapter, and where the affairs of any other body corporate or a person are investigated under section 219, of all officers and other employees and agents including former officers, employees and agents of such body corporate or a person: (a) to preserve and to produce to an inspector or any person authorised by him in this behalf all books and papers of, or relating to, the company or, as the case may be, relating to the other body corporate or the person, which are in their custody or power. (b) otherwise to give to the inspector all assistance in connection with the investigation which they are reasonably able to give. (2) The inspector may require any body corporate, other than a body corporate referred to in subsection (1), to furnish such information to, or produce such books and papers before him or any person authorised by him in this behalf as he may consider necessary, if the furnishing of such information or the production of such books and papers is relevant or necessary for the purposes of his investigation. (3) The inspector shall not keep in his custody any books and papers produced under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) for more than one hundred and eighty days and return the same to the company, body corporate, firm or individual by whom or on whose behalf the books and papers were produced: Provided that the books and papers may be called for by the inspector if they are needed again for a further period of one hundred and eighty days by an order in writing. (4) An inspector may examine on oath: (a) any of the persons referred to in sub-section (1). (4) An inspector may examine on oath: (a) any of the persons referred to in sub-section (1). (b) with the prior approval of the Central Government, any other person, in relation to the affairs of the company, or other body corporate or person, as the case may be, and for that purpose may require any of those persons to appear before him personally: Provided that in case of an investigation under section 212, the prior approval of Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office shall be sufficient under clause (b). (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract to the contrary, the inspector, being an officer of the Central Government, making an investigation under this Chapter shall have all the powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely: (a) the discovery and production of books of account and other documents, at such place and time as may be specified by such person. (b) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and examining them on oath. (c) inspection of any books, registers and other documents of the company at any place. (6) (i) If any director or officer of the company disobeys the direction issued by the Registrar or the inspector under this section, the director or the officer shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year and with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees. (ii) If a director or an officer of the company has been convicted of an offence under this section, the director or the officer shall, on and from the date on which he is so convicted, be deemed to have vacated his office as such and on such vacation of office, shall be disqualified from holding an office in any company. (7) The notes of any examination under sub-section (4) shall be taken down in writing and shall be read over to, or by, and signed by, the person examined, and may thereafter be used in evidence against him. (7) The notes of any examination under sub-section (4) shall be taken down in writing and shall be read over to, or by, and signed by, the person examined, and may thereafter be used in evidence against him. (8) If any person fails without reasonable cause or refuses: (a) to produce to an inspector or any person authorised by him in this behalf any book or paper which is his duty under subsection (1) or sub-section (2) to produce. (b) to furnish any information which is his duty under subsection (2) to furnish. (c) to appear before the inspector personally when required to do so under subsection (4) or to answer any question which is put to him by the inspector in pursuance of that sub-section. (d) to sign the notes of any examination referred to in subsection (7), he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees, and also with a further fine which may extend to two thousand rupees for every day after the first during which the failure or refusal continues. (9) The officers of the Central Government, State Government, police or statutory authority shall provide assistance to the inspector for the purpose of inspection, inquiry or investigation, which the inspector may, with the prior approval of the Central Government, require. (10) The Central Government may enter into an agreement with the Government of a foreign State for reciprocal arrangements to assist in any inspection, inquiry or investigation under this Act or under the corresponding law in force in that State and may, by notification, render the application of this Chapter in relation to a foreign State with which reciprocal arrangements have been made subject to such modifications, exceptions, conditions and qualifications as may be deemed expedient for implementing the agreement with that State. (11) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) if, in the course of an investigation into the affairs of the company, an application is made to the competent court in India by the inspector stating that evidence is, or may be, available in a country or place outside India, such court may issue a letter of request to a court or an authority in such country or place, competent to deal with such request, to examine orally, or otherwise, any person, supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, to record his statement made in the course of such examination and also to require such person or any other person to produce any document or thing, which may be in his possession pertaining to the case, and to forward all the evidence so taken or collected or the authenticated copies thereof or the things so collected to the court in India which had issued such letter of request: Provided that the letter of request shall be transmitted in such manner as the Central Government may specify in this behalf: Provided further that every statement recorded or document or thing received under this sub-section shall be deemed to be the evidence collected during the course of investigation. (12) Upon receipt of a letter of request from a court or an authority in a country or place outside India, competent to issue such letter in that country or place for the examination of any person or production of any document or thing in relation to affairs of a company under investigation in that country or place, the Central Government may, if it thinks fit, forward such letter of request to the court concerned, which shall thereupon summon the person before it and record his statement or cause any document or thing to be produced, or send the letter to any inspector for investigation, who shall thereupon investigate into the affairs of company in the same manner as the affairs of a company are investigated under this Act and the inspector shall submit the report to such court within thirty days or such extended time as the court may allow for further action: Provided that the evidence taken or collected under this subsection or authenticated copies thereof or the things so collected shall be forwarded by the court, to the Central Government for transmission, in such manner as the Central Government may deem fit, to the court or the authority in country or place outside India which had issued the letter of request. 21. In the aforesaid statutory provision, the person concerned who was supposed to remain present, if fails without any reasonable cause, then a penal consequence is also stipulated whereby person can be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months and fine which shall not be less than Rs.25,000/- and same can be extended as well. So from the aforesaid provision, it appears that there is some significance of personal presence mandated in the Statute in case of necessity. 21.1. The provision, referred to above, is entailing a penal consequences and as such, such kind of provision contained under the Statute must be given its true meaning and construed strictly and as such, when an officer in charge of investigation is requiring the appellant to remain present at investigation office, it is not for the Court to examine necessity for sufficiency of requirement of Investigating Officer. It is exclusively domain of the Investigating Officer how to conduct the investigation and in what manner and at which place and Court should not sit over discretion or usurp the discretion of an authority invested with the power in Statute. 22. In connection with the aforesaid provision and a perusal of summons dated 24.6.2022, placed at page 34 of the Letters Patent Appeal compilation, appellant has been summoned to appear personally before the investigating team at the address mentioned therein so as to see that investigation may be conducted in a timely manner and in the said summons, it has also been provided that non-compliance of direction contained in the summons, appellant may be prosecuted under sub-section (8) of Section 217 of the Companies Act, 2013. So from the aforesaid situation, which is prevailing, the appellant was supposed to remain personally present. However, on account of the situation which is mentioned and projected by the appellant, it appears that so far, he has refrained from appearing in person and under one application or the other, he attempted not to present. 23. In the light of the aforesaid situation, we may further peruse the background of facts which necessitated the learned single Judge to pass an order, impugned in the appeal, the same is expedient to be pointed out hereunder: (1) This very appellant in the earlier occasion has approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 2953 of 2021 almost for the very same relief to allow him to appear through video conferencing in view of the adverse medical condition. Said petition was taken up for hearing on 17.3.2021, wherein appellant filed a specific undertaking to the effect that he will appear before the respondent authority on any date fixed by it on or after 15th April 2021 and based upon said solemn assurance given in the form of undertaking, petition came to be disposed of. A perusal of the observations contained in paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 would clearly indicate that it was solemn undertaking given by the very appellant. Court deems it proper to reproduce said relevant paragraphs hereunder: 3. Now, when the matter is called out, learned advocate for the petitioner has placed on record an undertaking given by the petitioner in which the petitioner has stated as under: “1. Court deems it proper to reproduce said relevant paragraphs hereunder: 3. Now, when the matter is called out, learned advocate for the petitioner has placed on record an undertaking given by the petitioner in which the petitioner has stated as under: “1. The petitioner submits that in the last couple of weeks, the number of COVID-19 cases across the country have seen a very rapid increase, which is expected to come down in the next couple of weeks. 2. In view of the above, I, Arun Kumar Jagatramka, the petitioner above named, do hereby take oath and solemnly undertake to the Hon'ble Court that I will appear before the respondent on any date fixed by it on or after 15th April, 2021 which shall be communicated to me reasonably in advance in order for me to make necessary arrangements for travel etc. I most humbly submit that the respondents will fully comply with the order dated 02nd December, 2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Criminal) No. 3543 of 2020 and all applicable guidelines. Solemnly affirmed at Ahmedabad on this 15th day of March, 2021.” 5. Learned advocate Mr. Vivek Gupta appearing for the petitioner, after taking instructions from the petitioner, submitted that petitioner will cooperate with the respondent authority on 15.04.2021 and he will not request for adjournment. 6. In view of the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of with the direction to the petitioner to remain present on 15.04.2021 before the respondent authority and it is need less to say that if the petitioner fails to remain present on 15.04.2021 then it is always open for the respondent authority to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. (2) Subsequently, this order was sought to be modified by circulating Misc. Civil Application (for Modification of Order) No. 2 of 2021 in Special Civil Application No. 2953 of 2021. But, learned advocate appearing for the appellant had stated that due to efflux of time, application for modification has become infructuous, accordingly after recording the said statement, application was disposed of. (3) It appears from the record that later on, main petition, being Special Civil Application No. 14430 of 2021, came to be filed. A grievance was made by learned Additional Solicitor General Mr. (3) It appears from the record that later on, main petition, being Special Civil Application No. 14430 of 2021, came to be filed. A grievance was made by learned Additional Solicitor General Mr. Devang Vyas, that despite undertaking having been made, present appellant did not remain present before the Investigating Officer and at that juncture, learned advocate representing the appellant had submitted that due to Covid-19 situation, appellant could not remain present and no next date was informed. However, learned Single Judge upon submission of both learned advocates has observed that upon communication of date to remain present, as per undertaking, the appellant shall have to appear, failing which a serious view will be taken and matter was adjourned to 21.7.2022. Relevant observations contained in the order dated 16.6.2022, i.e. paragraph 3, are reproduced hereunder: 3. Under these circumstances, it will be open for the authorities to communicate appropriate date to the petitioner for appearing in the investigation. If such date is communicated, the petitioner, as per his undertaking, shall appear before the concerned Authority, failing which, a serious view will be taken against him. (4) Now, despite the aforesaid situation and the undertaking as well as assurance to remain present, appellant has filed yet another application being Civil Application No. 2 of 2022 (for direction) in Special Civil Application No. 14430 of 2021 with a request to permit the appellant to remain present before the authority through video conferencing on 11.7.2022 in view of the adverse medical condition, his age and underlying risks associated with travel during present Covid-19 situation. So, in substance, appellant went on insisting for video conferencing instead of remaining present before the authority for investigation as required. After considering the overall circumstances and the material on record, said Civil Application was heard at length by learned Single Judge, wherein noticing the conduct of the appellant, said Civil Application came to be rejected with certain observation, which are based upon the overall circumstances, and as such, only relevant extract the Court deems it proper to reproduce hereunder: 11. Today, even after passage of more than one year, same request and same prayer has been made despite the statement made by the learned advocate appearing for the applicant which is recorded by this Court in the order dated 16.06.2022. Today, even after passage of more than one year, same request and same prayer has been made despite the statement made by the learned advocate appearing for the applicant which is recorded by this Court in the order dated 16.06.2022. When the said order was passed on 16.06.2022, no contention with regard to ill-health was raised before this Court and it was only stated that the applicant could not appear since there is no next date of hearing informed. Thus, the present application appears to be ill-conceived and is afterthought. Despite the aforesaid orders passed by this Court, the applicant still appears to be reluctant in appearing before the respondent authority. 12. Thus, looking to the recalcitrant attitude of the applicant, the civil application does not merit acceptance and hence, the same is rejected. It will be open for the respondent authority to take appropriate steps against the applicant in accordance with law if he chooses not to appear on 11.07.2022. 24. From the aforesaid circumstances, it is quite visible that appellant instead of cooperating with the investigation, is out and out to insist for video conferencing instead of remaining present at the place of investigation office despite the appellant has voluntarily submitted an undertaking in past and assured the Court to remain present and time and again, has requested for even extension of time for such. In view of this, we see no good reason to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. Solemn undertaking given by learned the appellant and the statement to remain present are in proper perspective taken note of by the learned Single Judge while rejecting the Civil Application. We see no error committed by learned Single Judge in passing the order impugned in the present appeal. 24.1. It is a well recognized that a litigant cannot be absolved of undertaking solemnly given before the Court simply on the ground that undertaking was given under misconception. Breach of undertaking given to a Court is a serious matter and will have to be sternly dealt with and further, well-recognized principle is that a party cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Here, present appellant has undisputedly tendered a solemn undertaking on the proceedings and has assured the Court to remain present and as such, now turning out from such deserves to be viewed strictly. 25. Here, present appellant has undisputedly tendered a solemn undertaking on the proceedings and has assured the Court to remain present and as such, now turning out from such deserves to be viewed strictly. 25. At this juncture, we may also hasten to add that when a Statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner alone and in no other manner. This trite law has been in existence right from beginning and as such, when a statutory provision has prescribed a particular mode and investigation machinery is inclined to summon on the appellant, it is a duty cast upon the appellant to cooperate with the investigation and no other mode other than what has been stated in the Statute can be permitted. It is the exclusive domain of the Investigating Officer in what manner appellant is to be either interrogated or to summon on at a place of investigating office. In a recent past, Hon’ble the Apex Court has propounded the aforesaid proposition and in the decision in the case of Opto Circuit India Limited vs. Axis Bank and Others, (2021) 6 SCC 707 , in paragraph 14, it has been clearly emphasized, which we deem it proper to quote hereunder: 14. This Court has time and again emphasised that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner alone and in no other manner. Among others, in a matter relating to the presentation of an Election Petition, as per the procedure prescribed under the Patna High Court Rules, this Court had an occasion to consider the Rules to find out as to what would be a valid presentation of an Election Petition in the case of Chandra Kishor Jha vs. Mahavir Prasad and Others, (1999) 8 SCC 266 and in the course of consideration observed as hereunder: “17…. It is a well settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. It is a well settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. Aforesaid proposition is based upon well known maxim “ex pressio unius est exclusio alterius” and as such, on aforesaid principle also, we find no error committed by learned Single Judge and rightly, the request of the appellant has been rejected. 26. Even otherwise, conjoint reading of the aforesaid principle as well as the circumstances on the conduct of the appellant prevailing on record, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that learned Single Judge has arrived at a possible view. The scope of Letters Patent Appeal is also well defined by catena of decisions, one of such decisions delivered by Hon’ble Apex Court and the observations contained therein, i.e. in the case of Management of Narendra and Company Private Limited vs. Workmen of Narendra and Company, (2016) 3 SCC 340 , we deem it proper to reproduce hereunder: “5. Once the learned Single Judge having seen the records had come to the conclusion that the industry was not functioning after January 1995, there is no justification in entering a different finding without any further material before the Division Bench. The Appellate Bench ought to have noticed that the statement of MW 3 is itself part of the evidence before the Labour Court. Be that as it may, in an intra-court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the Appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief.” 27. In view of the aforesaid situation, decisions which have been cited by learned counsel for the appellant whether are of any assistance to the appellant or not, we may deal with and refer to the same in view of the peculiar background of facts on hand. 28. First judgment which has been referred is the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Dr. 28. First judgment which has been referred is the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai, (2003) 4 SCC 601 , wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with an issue regarding video conferencing in recording of evidence and after analysis of certain provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, a view is taken. But, while going through the said decision in detail, it appears that the facts are altogether different and there, request for recording of evidence through video conferencing was made in view of the fact that one of the witnesses was in USA and in that peculiar circumstance, order came to be passed. Whereas here, present appellant is very much residing within the country, has given solemn undertaking to the Hon’ble Court and assured more than once to appear before the Investigating officer and as such, in view of different facts of the case on hand, we are of the view that said proposition may not be of any assistance to the appellant. 29. Yet, another decision which has been tried to the pressed into service is the decision delivered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ (C) No. 5 of 2020 decided on 6.4.2020, which relates to Guidelines for Court Functioning Through Videoconferencing During Covid-19 Pandemic, reported in (2020) 6 SCC 686 , wherein Hon’ble the Apex Court was dealing with a situation, whereby there was a necessity to reduce physical presence in the Court premises where large number of litigants, advocates or officers as the case may be, might have to appear and in those particular circumstances, Hon’ble Court has made certain observations, to which we are in respectful agreement, but of the definite view that said decision will not be helpful to the present appellant. Appellant’s request time and again has been considered not only by the Court but also by the Investigating Officer, but then when the appellant has made an endeavour to avoid to remain personally present, in this peculiar background of facts, we are of the view that the request has rightly been rejected by learned Single Judge. 30. Appellant’s request time and again has been considered not only by the Court but also by the Investigating Officer, but then when the appellant has made an endeavour to avoid to remain personally present, in this peculiar background of facts, we are of the view that the request has rightly been rejected by learned Single Judge. 30. Law on the principle of precedent is quite made clear by the Hon’ble Apex Court that if facts are different, even one additional fact may make a world of difference in applying the principle and as such, keeping this authoritative principle in mind, we are of the opinion that the decisions cited by learned counsel appearing for the appellant are of no assistance and we see no merits in the Letters Patent Appeal. Accordingly, we deem it proper to dismiss the same. 31. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal is DISMISSED by affirming the order passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Application No. 2 of 2022 in Special Civil Application No. 14430 of 2021 dated 6.7.2022. No order as to costs. 32. Since main Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of, connected Civil Application stands consigned to records.