JUDGMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks direction to register an FIR against respondent no.4 under The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and IPC and to investigate the offence in accordance with law and further prays that respondent no.1 be directed to submit periodic status reports of investigation before this Court. Further prayer made is that respondent no.2 the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Department be directed to reassess the income tax details of respondent no.4 and his family members during the period he served as Public Servant. Further direction was also sought that respondent No.3, the Enforcement Directorate be directed to lodge an ECIR and investigate offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent no.4 contested the elections for 3 consecutive terms commencing from the years 2008, 2013 and 2018 respectively and served as Public Servant as Chief Minister of State and played key role in State governance. It is submitted that during the intervening period of subsequent years, there had been increase in assets of respondent no.4 and his associates, which is disproportionate to his/their known sources of income. Referring to the pleading, he would submit that the comparative chart which was filed before the election officer i.e., election-affidavit would show that many-fold increase in the assets have been shown for three consecutive years. It is further submitted that the petitioner knocked the doors of various central agencies, but all of them have shirked their responsibilities and lastly the Economic Offences Wing of the State to which the said complaint was forwarded came out with a reply that the particulars cannot be unfolded as the applications are pending. 2 (b) Counsel further submits that in order to suppress the petitioner’s pursuance against respondent no.4, the premises of petitioner was raided by Enforcement Directorate during the pendency of this petition and the comparison of the election-affidavits and the assets would show that the offence is committed by respondent no.4 under The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He would further submit that respondent no.4 who came out with a reply in this petition does not have a locus-standi to resist the adjudication of this petition inasmuch as this Court in W.P(Cr). No. 121/2017 (Dhananjay Kumar Vs. He would further submit that respondent no.4 who came out with a reply in this petition does not have a locus-standi to resist the adjudication of this petition inasmuch as this Court in W.P(Cr). No. 121/2017 (Dhananjay Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) has categorically stated that the prospective accused has no right of hearing before registration of FIR and investigation by the Police Officer or before the Court, including the writ court. He would further submit that the nature of evidence collected against respondent no.4 is based on election-affidavits which are placed on record and there exists no controverted facts which would lead to show that by simple examination of comparative affidavits, many-fold increase in income and assets of respondent no.4 was found while he was in public office thereby corruption is writ large. 2(c) He further submits that the Income Tax Authorities i.e., Respondent no.2 had issued notices under the Income Tax Act and in reply filed by them, it was stated that nothing was found but the covering-memo which is placed on record before this Court would show that certain investigation was going on, which was not brought to the notice of this Court. Thus the circumstances lead to call for an investigation by the CBI and ED both. He would further submit that since evidently the offence has been made-out by bare comparison of the election-affidavits, this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution can direct registration of FIR against Respondent No.4. 3. He placed reliance in Lok Prahari through its General Secretary S.N. Shukla Versus Union of India (2018) 4 SCC 699 to submit that the Court can look into the veracity of the election-affidavits and can very well direct investigation by Respondent no.1 and 3. Further reliance is placed in Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, U.P. versus Sahngoo Ram Arya (2002) 5 SCC 521 to submit that the Court would be competent to direct the enquiry by CBI in cases where there is a sufficient material to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is a need for any enquiry irrespective of the fact that it has not been supported by the petitioner in the pleading. Under the circumstances, this Court could very well direct the CBI and in alternative since according to CBI, the complaint has been forwarded to EOW, they may be directed to finish the enquiry within a time-frame. 4. Per contra, Shri B. Gopa Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.1 would submit that they have filed the reply and the complaint made by petitioner dated 04.11.2020 was forwarded to the Addl. Director General of Police (ADG), Anti Corruption, EOW, Government of Chhattisgarh. He further submits that since the allegations do not disclose any involvement of Inter-State racket having national or international ramification, the CBI may not be required to even look into the matter. He further submits that a direction for such investigation of like nature cases would put unavoidable stress on limited sources of the CBI. He also relies on a decision in State of West Bengal Vs. Committee of Protection of Democratic Rights West Bengal (2010) SCC 571 and Pooja Pal Versus Union of India (2016) 3 SCC 135 to submit that unless prima facie case is made out, the investigation should not be ordered for. 5. Shri Amit Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondent no.2, the Income Tax Department, would submit that they have filed a detailed reply and according to them, no anomaly of income was found on the basis of election-affidavit and thorough scrutiny was made into the complaint. Referring to his reply, he would submit that since no discrepancy of income was detected on verification, no further enquiry was proposed in Affidavit Verification Report. 6. Shri Ramakant Mishra, learned Counsel for respondent no.3 would submit that since prima facie no schedule offence was made out, consciously the reply has not been filed and they have unnecessarily been arrayed party in this petition. 7. (i) Mr. Anil Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vivek Sharma and Mr. Priyank Agrawal, Advocates, appearing for respondent no.4 vehemently opposes the petition and submits that vague allegations have been made and the nature of prayer in the petition would show that the petitioner himself was not in know of the fact what kind and nature of offence is made out. He submits that the alleged calculation of increase in the assets made by the petitioner on the basis of election-affidavit cannot be the basis to conduct investigation against respondent no.4. He submits that the alleged calculation of increase in the assets made by the petitioner on the basis of election-affidavit cannot be the basis to conduct investigation against respondent no.4. 7(ii) He further contends that appropriate authority would be the income tax department and/or the Election Commission of India and if there were any queries/concerns relating to assets that would have been raised by the appropriate authority concerned with the electoral process. He submits that the income tax authorities were supplied requisite information from time to time by respondent no.4. 7(iii) He further submits that the answering respondent no.4 submitted reply to the queries dated 28.05.2014 and 20.06.2014 made by the Income Tax Department for verifying the information provided by him in affidavits for the elections held in 2008 and 2013 and the said reply was acknowledged by the income tax department and no further queries/concerns were expressed by the competent authority. 7(iv) Referring to the reply of Income tax Department, learned Senior counsel would further submit that according to the details provided in Affidavit Verification Report (AVR), no violation of direct tax- laws was found and the Affidavits of 2013 and 2018 were verified by the Investigation Directorate of Income Tax Department including the assets disclosure in 2013, but no discrepancy was detected. Referring to the petition and the affidavit, he would submit that the petitioner has miscalculated the value of assets and in order to ascertain the value of income and assets prior to the check period and thereafter during subsequent stage, the escalation of prices are required to be considered. Referring to a decision reported in 1987 Supp. SCC 379, he would submit that certain procedure has been laid down to evaluate the nature of such kind of asset valuation to calculate the assets accumulation. 7 (v) Learned Senior Counsel further refers to section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 prior to the amendment of 26.07.2018 to submit that subsection (e) and explanation known sources of income is now replaced by new amendment in 13(b), the lawful sources has been substituted, meaning thereby the income derived from lawful sources would not be an offence. He refers to the election-affidavit filed by respondent no.4 in 2013 and 2018 and submits that the very nature of information provided in AVRs will show that the value of immovable property has increased to manyfolds due to price escalation, therefore, it would not be an illegal income over a period of time. He further submits that the petition is completely silent and vague on this issue and roving enquiry and investigation cannot be ordered for by the Court on private complaint of like nature. Further reliance is placed in case of Kunga Nima Lepcha Vs. State of Sikkim ( 2010) 4 SCC 513 to contend that that the petitioner is in individual capacity and the nature of petition is not a Public Interest Litigation, therefore, when no specific violation of fundamental right is shown, the investigation by CBI cannot be ordered for. He placed further reliance on in State of Jharkhan Versus Shiv Shankar Sharma 2022 SCC Online SC 1541 to submit that the petitioner does not have any locus and if the nature of petition is taken to be the nature of PIL then without any investigation or any bona-fide the petition has been filed. He further relied on Lok Prahari Vs. Union of India 2018 (4) SCC 699 to submit that the nature of petition would amount to a selective scrutiny which is uncalled for and would only be serving the personal political vendetta. He lastly relies in case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India 1999 (6) SCC 667 to contend that in the like nature cases, direction for investigation by CBI would be against the concept and philosophy of “LIFE’ and LIBERTY’ guaranteed to a person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the petition and documents annexed thereto. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the petition and documents annexed thereto. Perusal of the writ petition would show that the following four reliefs have been claimed in Para 10 : “10.1 Issue appropriate writ, Order or direction to respondent no.1 to register an FIR under relevant section sections of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Indian Penal Code and investigate the matter in accordance with law; and 10.2 Direct the respondent no.1 to submit periodic status reports before this Hon’ble Court with regard to the progress of the investigation; 10.3 Issue appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent no.2 to reassess the income details of the respondent no.4 and his family members for the tenure, he served as public servant; 10.4 Direct the respondent no. to lodge an ECIR and investigate offences which has been committed by respondent no.4 under Prevention of Money Laundering Act”. 9. Further perusal of the petition would show that the entire basis of petition is on the basis of the affidavit filed by respondent no.4 during the 3 consecutive elections with returning officer for the elections contested in the years 2008, 2013 and 2018. The main contention of the petitioner is that the affidavit which was filed before the Election Commissioner discloses enormous hike in the assets over a period of time which is otherwise than known sources of income. The entire averments in the writ petition revolves around the affidavit. The allegation prima facie shows that the contents of affidavit filed during election was made substratum to calculate the increase of assets of Respondent no.4. 10. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent no.2, Income Tax Department, wherein it is stated that the Investigation Directorate of ITD carried out verification of assets and liabilities declared in various Election Affidavits filed by the elected candidates including that of respondent no.4 from the year 2008 to 2018 as per the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The reply says that after such verification of every selected affidavit, an Affidavit Verification Report (AVR) is prepared and if there is an adverse finding for violation of provisions of Direct Tax Laws, the AVR is shared with the jurisdictional Assessing Officer concerned, who takes appropriate action in such cases including reopening the case for relevant years, under the Direct Tax Laws. 11. 11. Reply by Income Tax Department further purports that the election-affidavit filed by respondent no.4 in the year 2013 as also 2018 were duly verified by the Investigation Directorate of ITD Raipur as per the prescribed SOP. Thereafter a report was submitted to the concerned Jurisdictional Assessing officer who in turn after independently examining the issues, the replies of the respondent and examining other aspects by applying the provisions of Direct Tax Laws did not find it actionable enough for initiating any further action. The reply further purports that the assets mentioned in the election-affidavit filed by respondent no.4 in the year 2018 was again verified by Investigation Directorate of ITD which also included the assets disclosed by him in affidavit of 2013 and on such verification, no discrepancy was detected and no further enquiry was proposed in the AVR. The Income Tax Department on the basis of data-base available with it has further stated that respondent no.4 is regularly filing the Income Tax Returns and the last ITR upto assessment year 2021-22 has been filed. It was also stated that no specific allegation of escapement of income for any particular Assessment Year has been mentioned by the petitioner. Therefore, according to the Income Tax Department, the election-affidavits filed by respondent no.4 were duly verified according to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) which is prevalent and after over all investigation, the department did not find any fault to come to a finding of income from untold sources. 12. In order to make ourselves prima facie satisfied to the contents of the affidavit, we have gone through the affidavit filed in the election years 2013 and 2018. A comparative study of both the affidavits show that the immovable properties possessed by respondent no.4 are more or less same, but the value of properties is shown to have been increased. Meaning thereby the comparative study would denote that there had been an escalation of price of the immovable properties which was shown in affidavit. The nucleus of cause of action on which the petitioner proceeded is the election affidavits. No other facts are placed before us. According to IT department, those affidavits filed during election were verified and no discrepancy in tax assessment was pointed out. The nucleus of cause of action on which the petitioner proceeded is the election affidavits. No other facts are placed before us. According to IT department, those affidavits filed during election were verified and no discrepancy in tax assessment was pointed out. This Court, therefore, would not sit as an appellate authority over the finding of the I.T. Department to direct a further investigation by IT Department in a private petition filed by an individual without there being other substantial prima facie facts on record. 13. In reply of respondent no.1 CBI, it is stated that the allegations in the writ petition do not disclose any involvement of inter-State racket having national or international ramification and initially when the report was received on 04.11.2020, it was forwarded by the DG Anti-Corruption Bureau, Government of Chhattisgarh. This instant petition is filed by an individual and it is not in the nature of PIL. The Supreme Court in case of Kunga Nima Lepcha Versus State of Sikkim (Supra) held that the writ jurisdiction exercised by the Court cannot be turned into an instrument of such partisan considerations. However, even if we were to accept the locus standi of the petitioners keeping in mind that the allegations of corruption on the part of the incumbent Chief Minister do touch on public interest, this Court is not the appropriate forum for seeking the initiation of investigation. The Court further held that the remedies evolved by way of writ jurisdiction are of an extraordinary nature. They cannot be granted as a matter of due course to provide redressal in situations where statutory remedies are available. It is quite evident that the onus is on the petitioners to demonstrate a specific violation of any of the fundamental rights in order to seek relief under writ jurisdiction. 14. The entire reading of contents of petition would show that no whisper is made that what fundamental right of the petitioner in individual capacity was violated. Consequently, the nature of investigation which is sought for by an individual would be against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Kunga Nima Lepcha’s case (supra). 14. The entire reading of contents of petition would show that no whisper is made that what fundamental right of the petitioner in individual capacity was violated. Consequently, the nature of investigation which is sought for by an individual would be against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Kunga Nima Lepcha’s case (supra). In that case the Court further held that earlier the order of investigation and monitoring by the Court was given when specific violation of fundamental right was shown and in some cases, the judicial intervention by way of writ jurisdiction is warranted on account of obstructions to the investigation process such as material threats to the witnesses, the destruction of evidence or undue pressure from powerful interests. In all these circumstances, the writ court can play a corrective role to ensure that the integrity of the investigation is not compromised. However, it is not viable for a writ Court to order the initiation of an investigation. That function clearly lies in the domain of the Executive. In this instant petition, no circumstances are shown that any obstruction is made by respondent no.4 or investigation agencies or any undue pressure was applied on the witness or any officials. On the contrary, the Income Tax Department has come-out with reply to say that enquiry to the contents of affidavit filed by Respondent no.4 were investigated and no income otherwise than known sources was found. 15. Further the Supreme in case of State of Jharkhand Versus Shiv Shankar Sharma (Supra) emphasized that the locus of the petitioner who initiates a PIL is therefore of extreme importance as this important form of litigation should not be abused by motivated individuals to abuse the process of the Court for their political purposes or for any other reason, but for a Public Cause. In the instant case, the PIL has not been filed but a petition in individual capacity. The allegations of the petition would show that the allegations are vague, generalized in character and without even comparison of the price escalation of assets. But has been filed only to say that there has been undue accretion of assets disproportion to the known sources of income. The allegations of the petition would show that the allegations are vague, generalized in character and without even comparison of the price escalation of assets. But has been filed only to say that there has been undue accretion of assets disproportion to the known sources of income. Simply the mathematical figures were shown in the petition which have been taken from the election-affidavit which prima facie do not satisfy especially when the Income Tax Department has stated that the election affidavits were thoroughly checked and investigated and no anomaly was found. It appears that the petitioner has casually filed this petition for the reasons best known to him on a generalized allegations which do not even make a prima-facie satisfaction of the Court and it appears to be an abuse of process. 16. The direction to CBI to investigate was considered by the Supreme Court way back in Common Cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 667 wherein it was held that investigation by CBI cannot be casually made and any such direction would be contrary to the concept and philosophy of life and liberty guaranteed to a person under Article 21. Para 174 of the said judgment is relevant and quoted below: “174. The other direction, namely, the direction to CBI to investigate “any other offence” is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained. Obviously direction for investigation can be given only if an offence is, prima facie, found to have been committed or a person’s involvement is prima facie established, but a direction to CBI to investigate whether any person has committed an offence or not cannot be legally given. Such a direction would be contrary to the concept and philosophy of “LIFE” and “LIBERTY” guaranteed to a person under Article 21 of the Constitution. This direction is in complete negation of various decisions of this Court in which the concept of “LIFE” has been explained in a manner which has infused “LIFE” into the letters of Article 21.” 17. In view of the foregoing discussions and applying the above position of law, we are of the considered view that without there being any prima facie case against respondent no.4, this Court cannot grant any order to investigate only on the basis of election-affidavits, which are only the basis for this petition. In view of the foregoing discussions and applying the above position of law, we are of the considered view that without there being any prima facie case against respondent no.4, this Court cannot grant any order to investigate only on the basis of election-affidavits, which are only the basis for this petition. The nature of allegations and the relief(s) sought in the petition would show that the petitioner has approached this Court in his individual capacity for selective scrutiny by giving a complete go-bye to the mechanism which was already adopted and concluded by the appropriate authority in respect of election-affidavits filed by respondent no.4. In the result, the petition has no merit and is dismissed.