Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 580 (UTT)

Deepak Kargeti v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-10-11

RAKESH THAPLIYAL, VIPIN SANGHI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Vipin Sanghi, J. We have heard Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner-Deepak Kargeti, Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General, representing the State of Uttarakhand, Mr. Murari Tiwari and Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsels for the respondent-Dr. Harminder Singh Baweja and, Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of M/s Anika Traders. 2. The first of these petitions, being Writ Petition (PIL) No. 03 of 2023, was preferred at the end of December 2022, to seek the constitution of a High Level Enquiry Committee / independent Enquiry Committee for enquiring into the allegations of serious financial and administrative irregularities, allegedly committed by respondent No. 3, i.e., Dr. Harminder Singh Baweja, who was then posted as Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, Uttarakhand. In the petition, the petitioner made allegations that after his appointment on 27.01.2021 as Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, Dr. Harminder Singh Baweja, had caused a loss to the State and, to the people of the State, by revising the rates of Kiwi seedling plants from Rs.35/- to Rs.75/- per plant, and that of the grafted Kiwi plant from Rs.75/- to Rs.175/- per plant. The petitioner alleged that a complaint had been made against Dr. Harminder Singh Baweja to the Government, and the complainant Gopal Dutt Upreti has also filed an affidavit in support of the same. It was also alleged that directions were issued by Dr. Baweja to the Chief Horticulture Officers, District Horticulture Officers of the State, and other subordinate officers, requiring them to purchase the seedlings of Apple, Apricot, Pear, Almond and Peach from Javid Nursery, Qaimoh Kulgam, Jammu & Kashmir during 2021-2022. The petitioner also alleged that Dr. Baweja again revised the rates for purchase and sale of all varieties of Kiwi plants from Rs.75/- to Rs.225/- per plant, and that of grafted Kiwi plants from Rs.175/- to Rs.275/- per plant. Other allegations were also made in relation to the purchase of Ginger and Turmeric seeds. However, no action was taken in respect of the said complaints to enquire into the conduct of Dr. Harminder Singh Baweja. The petitioner also alleged that Dr. Baweja was a tainted officer, and he was already facing an enquiry by the State of Himachal Pradesh in respect of alleged financial irregularities committed by him, while holding the post of Director, Horticulture, Shimla. Harminder Singh Baweja. The petitioner also alleged that Dr. Baweja was a tainted officer, and he was already facing an enquiry by the State of Himachal Pradesh in respect of alleged financial irregularities committed by him, while holding the post of Director, Horticulture, Shimla. The petitioner alleged that he had made certain other representations repeatedly, but to no avail. 3. This Court issued notice in the Writ Petition (PIL) No. 03 of 2023 on 07.01.2023. Counter-affidavits were required to be filed by the respondents, and the matter was adjourned to 19.06.2023. 4. The State filed its counter-affidavit, inter alia, stating that on the basis of several complaints received against Dr. Baweja regarding alleged financial and administrative irregularities, while holding the post of Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, Uttarakhand, the then Secretary, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand was appointed as the Enquiry Officer vide Office Order dated 30.09.2022, as per the directions of Hon’ble the Chief Minister, and orders were passed by the Departmental Hon’ble Minister. The Enquiry Officer has submitted his enquiry report. It was found by the Enquiry Officer, that a charge-sheet had been served upon Dr. Baweja by the State of Himachal Pradesh. It was also disclosed that vide office order dated 13.11.2021, the period of deputation of Dr. Baweja was extended for another two years, i.e., 01.02.2022 to 31.01.2024. It is stated that, at the time of the extension of the period of Dr. Baweja, no communication regarding any alleged enquiry being conducted by the State of Himachal Pradesh was within the domain of the State Government. 5. While Writ Petition (PIL) No. 03 of 2023 was pending, Gopal Datt Upreti preferred Writ Petition (PIL) No. 04 of 2023. In this petition as well, the petitioner Gopal Datt Upreti made allegations of financial irregularities by Dr. Baweja, the then Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, Uttarakhand, who was impleaded as respondent No. 3. One of the grievances raised by the petitioner Gopal Datt Upreti was that, respondent No. 3 Dr. Baweja was functioning from the Circuit Office, State Horticulture, Dehradun, and was not to be found at Hortiulture Building, Chaubatia, Ranikhet, District Almora, where he was required to discharge his duties and responsibilities. The writ petitioner Gopal Datt Upreti also sought a direction to relieve Dr. Baweja was functioning from the Circuit Office, State Horticulture, Dehradun, and was not to be found at Hortiulture Building, Chaubatia, Ranikhet, District Almora, where he was required to discharge his duties and responsibilities. The writ petitioner Gopal Datt Upreti also sought a direction to relieve Dr. Baweja from the post of Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, Uttarakhand, in the light of the enquiry, and the charges levelled against him by the Secretary, Horticulture, Government of Himachal Pradesh, filed on record as Annexure-11. 6. Writ Petition (PIL) No. 04 of 2023 was taken up by this Court on 10.01.2023. The said petition was directed to be listed with Writ Petition (PIL) No. 03 of 2023. 7. In the meantime, petitioner Deepak Kargeti preferred Writ Petition (PIL) No. 25 of 2023, wherein Dr. Baweja was impleaded as respondent No. 11. The petitioner alleged in this petition that Dr. Baweja issued various allotment letters to Chief Horticulture Officers, Districts Champawat, Almora and Uttarkashi, regarding allotment of winter season fruit plants for 2022-2023 under the Chief Minister Integrated Horticulture Development Free Distribution Scheme, to be lifted from M/s Anika Traders and Nursery, Oadhgaon, Tehsil Badkot, District Uttarkashi. M/s Anika Traders was impleaded as respondent No. 9 by the writ petitioner. The petitioner alleged that the said M/s Anika Traders and Nursery did not exist at its given address. The allegation was that the Director was procuring sub-standard fruit plants from outside the State through another nursery in Jammu & Kashmir. The petitioner alleged that the Licensing Authority / Director, Horticulture and Food Processing had issued license in favour of M/s Anika Traders and Nursery under Fruit Nurseries (Regulation) Act, 2019, by violating the provisions of the Act and the Regulations. 8. Writ Petition (PIL) No. 25 of 2023 was listed before the Court on 01.03.2023. After hearing counsels for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand, we passed the following order : “The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition in public interest. The reliefs sought in this writ petition are as follows:- “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. After hearing counsels for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand, we passed the following order : “The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition in public interest. The reliefs sought in this writ petition are as follows:- “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to constitute a High Level Inquiry Committee/ Independent Inquiry Committee for inquiring into the role of the Officers of the Directorate of Horticulture and Food Processing, Uttarakhand, Ranikhet including the Licensing Authority regarding issuance of License in favour of M/s Anika Traders and Nursery (Respondent No. 9), in violation of the provisions of Fruit Nursery (Regulation) Act, 2019 and the consequently issuance of Allotment Letters for obtaining Fruit Plants from Respondent No. 9, based on the said License. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records from the Office of Licensing Authority/ Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, Ranikhet, Uttarakhand (copy of which is not available with the petitioner) and to cancel the License issued in favour of M/s Anika Traders and Nursery (Respondent No. 9), which has been issued by the Licensing Authority in violation of the provisions of Fruit Nursery (Regulation) Act, 2019 and by manipulating the records.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that the Government of Uttarakhand notified the Uttarakhand Fruits Nurseries (Regulation) Act, 2019 with the object of making provisions for issuance of licenses and regulation of Fruit Nurseries in the State of Uttarakhand. Section 9 of the said Act provides for issuance of license for Fruit Nursery, and prohibits any person / authority from conducting or carrying on the business of fruit nursery without license. Under the said Act, the Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, Uttarakhand, is the designated licensing authority. Section 4 of the said Act provides for submission of an Application for issuance of license, while Section 5 deals with essential conditions for grant of license. It provides that the applicant should have the mother block for establishment of a fruit nursery. 3. It appears that respondent No. 11 was appointed as the Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, Uttarakhand for a period of one year on deputation on 27.01.2021. He proceeded to firstly fix the rates for purchase of fruit trees during the winter and the monsoon seasons. 3. It appears that respondent No. 11 was appointed as the Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, Uttarakhand for a period of one year on deputation on 27.01.2021. He proceeded to firstly fix the rates for purchase of fruit trees during the winter and the monsoon seasons. The rates were revised by respondent No. 11 on 14.12.2021 for all varieties of Kiwi to Rs.275/- per plant. 4. On 07.01.2022, the Uttarakhand Fruit Nursery (Regulation) Rules, 2021 were notified under Section 23 of the Fruit Nursery Act, 2019. Under the said Rules, provisions were made for making an application for grant of license and conditions of eligibility for grant of license. Inter alia, the said Rules provide for inspection of nursery. Rule 9 of the said Rules also requires the license holder / nursery owner to provide the information in writing to the Director, Horticulture through concerned District / Chief Horticulture Officer in respect of the material available in the nursery for the purpose of sale. 5. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 9 was issued an undated license. The petitioner does not have the particulars of the license, but submits that on the basis of the said license, respondent No. 9 has been issued an 4 allotment order for supplying fruit trees such as Apple, Apricot, Walnut, Kiwi and Pear. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a report prepared by the District Magistrate, Uttarkashi dated 25.01.2023, according to which, on inspection, it was found that respondent No. 9 was not located at its given address, where it was supposed to have its nursery in Village Oadhgaon. It further appears that it was claimed that the name of the Village has wrongly been mentioned, and the same is situated at Village Lodhan, Tehsil Barkot. However, even at that place, respondent No. 9 does not have its nursery. 7. From the records, it appears that it was subsequently claimed that respondent No. 9 has a one year contract with a Nursery in Jammu and Kashmir, namely, Green Nursery, Qaimoh, District Kulgam, Jammu and Kashmir. 8. Learned counsel also submits on the basis of the record, that the application form submitted by respondent No. 9 for obtaining the license is completely bereft of particulars. 8. Learned counsel also submits on the basis of the record, that the application form submitted by respondent No. 9 for obtaining the license is completely bereft of particulars. He also points-out that as per the information uploaded on the website of National Horticulture Board, the said Green Nursery in Kulgam, Jammu and Kashmir has mother stock only of Apple, and not for other fruits. Whereas the total production capacity of the said Nursery is 41,000 saplings, allotment order has been issued in favour of respondent No. 9 for over a lacs saplings. 9. Learned counsel has also submitted that Secretary, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun has called for an explanation from respondent No. 9, but no action has been taken till date. In fact, respondent No. 11 has issued another allotment letter in favour of respondent No. 9, even after an inquiry was sought to be made by the Secretary, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand. 10. The facts brought on record by the petitioner, and the issues raised by the petitioner, raise a very grave and serious concern about the impact on horticultural activities in the State of Uttarakhand. The conduct of respondent No. 11, prima facie, appears to be questionable, and there is a lot of explanation that the respondent Authorities, particularly, respondent No. 9 have to provide. Firstly, it needs to be explained as to how respondent No. 9 was issued license without respondent No. 9 having its nursery at the address disclosed, and without it having the mother stock. It is not even clear as to when the license was issued, since the same appears to be undated. It is not clear as to which are the fruits for which the license has been granted. If there are other licensees, why it is that the allotment order has been issued only to respondent No. 9. 11. Supply of spurious saplings to farmers can have a devastating effect, inasmuch as they may not come to know that the saplings planted and nurtured by them were of poor quality for years together, since it may take a few years for the saplings to grow into trees and bear fruit. 12. In the aforesaid light, we direct respondent Nos. 1 to 8, who are represented before us through Mr. 12. In the aforesaid light, we direct respondent Nos. 1 to 8, who are represented before us through Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand, to file their affidavits on all the aforesaid aspects within three weeks. They shall also place on record the license granted in favour of respondent No. 9, and the copies of the inspection reports conducted at Uttarkashi and Jammu and Kashmir. 13. We also direct the Secretary, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun to immediately take remedial steps without waiting for further orders of this Court, after examining the whole matter himself. He is also directed to make inquiry at his own end and, if called for, action may be taken by him against respondent Nos. 9 & 11. 14. Respondent No. 11 shall file his personal affidavit on the aforesaid aspects within three weeks. 15. This order as well as the notice issued to respondent No.11 shall be communicated to respondent No. 11 by the Secretary, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand during the course of the day. 16. On the next date, respondent No. 11 shall personally remain present in the Court. 17. We direct that no amount be released to respondent No. 9 till the matter is examined by the Secretary, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand, and without his approval. The Secretary, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare shall satisfy himself whether any amount due to respondent No. 9 under the allotment letters issued in favour of respondent No. 9, should be withheld or not, and in case the Secretary, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare finds that there is irregularity, he may direct that the amounts payable to respondent No. 9 may be withheld till further orders. 18. Let notice issue to respondent Nos. 9 and 11, as aforesaid, returnable by 28.03.2023, by all permitted modes, including electronically. Notice to respondent No. 11 be also served by the Secretary, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare. 19. We are not inclined to issue notice to respondent No. 10. 20. List on 28.03.2023. 21. Let certified copy of this order be issued to the parties, on payment of the prescribed charges, today itself.” (emphasis supplied) 9. Writ Petition (PIL) No. 25 of 2023 was again taken up by this Court on 14.06.2023. 19. We are not inclined to issue notice to respondent No. 10. 20. List on 28.03.2023. 21. Let certified copy of this order be issued to the parties, on payment of the prescribed charges, today itself.” (emphasis supplied) 9. Writ Petition (PIL) No. 25 of 2023 was again taken up by this Court on 14.06.2023. We were informed that despite our order dated 01.03.2023, directing that no amount be released to M/s Anika Traders, i.e., respondent No. 9 till the matter is examined by the Secretary, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand, and without his approval, an amount of Rs.1,76,98,037/- was released to respondent No. 9 on 2nd and 3rd March, 2023. We may extract the relevant portion of our order dated 14.06.2023, passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 25 of 2023 hereunder, which reads as follows : “7. It is pointed out by Mr. Vinay Kumar that, despite our order dated 01.03.2023, directing that no amount be released to respondent no. 9 till the matter is examined by the Secretary, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand, and without his approval, an amount of Rs.1,76,98,037/- was released to respondent no. 9 on 02nd and 03rd of March, 2023. 8. The supplementary counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 4 discloses in paragraph no. 5(ii) that on 02.03.2023, an E-mail was received at 03:09 P.M. from Directorate of Horticulture and Food Processing, Uttarakhand stating that no payment be made to M/s Anika Traders & Nursery, i.e. respondent no. 9, in the light of the order passed by this Court on 01.03.2023. 9. Despite the aforesaid communication, an amount of Rs.1,76,98,037/- was released by the respondent authorities to respondent no. 9. Of the amounts released, amounts of Rs.10,62,250/-, 15,84,000/- & Rs.13,92,000/- were released on 03.03.2023, i.e. clearly after the communication of the said order of this Court. 10. Mr. C.S. Rawat submits that the departmental pairokars of the Horticulture Department are always present during hearing, and the order dated 01.03.2023 was communicated to the Director, Horticulture on the very same day, i.e. 01.03.2023. The Joint Director – Dr. Brijesh Kumar is present in Court, and states that one Mr. Gopesh of clerical staff was present in Court on 01.03.2023, and he communicated the said order to the Director, Horticulture on the same day. 11. The Joint Director – Dr. Brijesh Kumar is present in Court, and states that one Mr. Gopesh of clerical staff was present in Court on 01.03.2023, and he communicated the said order to the Director, Horticulture on the same day. 11. It is, therefore, clear to us that at least the amounts, which were released on 03.03.2023 in favour of respondent no. 9, were clearly in breach of order passed by this Court on 01.03.2023. It is further informed to us that Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, Chief Horticulture Officer, Uttarkashi was the person, who has released the amounts in violation of the orders of this Court. He has since retired on 30.04.2023. 12. The respondents are directed to look into the said aspect, and take whatever action is deemed necessary in the matter, including appropriate action against Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra. 13. We issue notice to Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, requiring him to show cause, as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for his aforesaid conduct. The notice shall be served upon him through the Secretary, Agriculture/ Horticulture and Farmer Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand. Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra shall personally remain present in Court on the next date. A copy of this order shall also be communicated to him, along with the notice. 14. We are informed that respondent no. 11 has since been suspended, and departmental enquiry has been initiated against him, with the service of charge sheet. We make it clear that the said proceedings shall continue, irrespective of the pendency of these proceedings, and these proceedings shall not come in the way of the departmental proceedings, which have been initiated against respondent no. 11.” 10. On or about 04.06.2023, the petitioner Deepak Kargeti preferred another writ petition, being Writ Petition (PIL) No. 98 of 2023, seeking a direction for holding an enquiry into the misappropriation and embezzlement of the government money by respondent Nos. 6 to 10 in collusion with one another, in the garb of procurement of winter fruit plants by Chief Horticulture Officer, District Nainital, for supply to the farmers of the State during winter season 2022-2023, through an independent Investigating Agency / Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), in a time bound manner. 11. Respondent Nos. 6 to 10 in this petition were as follows : Respondent No. 6 Dr. 11. Respondent Nos. 6 to 10 in this petition were as follows : Respondent No. 6 Dr. Harminder Singh Baweja, (Under suspension) Director, Directorate of Horticulture and Food Processing, Uttarakhand Respondent No. 7 Sri Rajendra Kumar Singh, Potato and Vegetable Officer District Udham Singh Nagar, then posted as Officiating Chief Horticulture Officer, Bhimtal, District Nainital Respondent No. 8 Sri Triloki Rai, then posted Chief Horticulture Officer (Incharge), District Pithoragarh Respondent No. 9 M/s Barkat Agro Farms, Pulwama, Jammu & Kashmir Respondent No. 10 Vishal Nursery, Village Bagori, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh 12. The CBI was impleaded as respondent No. 11. 13. The petitioner alleged that on 04.01.2023, an undated license was issued by Director, Horticulture, i.e., Dr. Baweja in favour of M/s Anika Traders, immediately where after, directions were issued to the Chief Horticulture Officers, Nainital and Uttarkashi for procuring Apple fruit plants through M/s Aika Traders for distribution among farmers in the State. The local farmers and residents of District Uttarkashi protested against M/s Anika Trades on account of issuance of work orders of huge quantity of saplings involving very large amounts on the ground that M/s Anika Traders did not have any nursery in Village Oadhgaon, Tehsil Badkot, District Uttarkashi. The petitioner also alleged irregularities in the matter of issuance of supply orders to M/s Barkat Agro Farms, and Vishal Nursery. 14. The said writ petition was taken up by this Court on 27.06.2023, when notice was issued to the respondents. The CBI / respondent No. 11 was directed to examine the allegations made in the writ petition, supported with documents, and to respond on the next date, whether a case, worth registering a preliminary enquiry, is made out, or not. This Court also directed the Secretary, Horticulture and Farmer Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand, to seize all the records relating to the contracts in question in the said writ petition, as well as in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 25 of 2023, in relation to District Nainital, and to seal the same and ensure that there is no tampering with the records. WPPIL No. 03 of 2023, WPPIL No. 25 of 2023, and WPPIL No. 98 of 2023 were again taken up on 18.07.2023. WPPIL No. 03 of 2023, WPPIL No. 25 of 2023, and WPPIL No. 98 of 2023 were again taken up on 18.07.2023. On that date, learned counsel for the CBI tendered in Court, a communication dated 13.07.2023, received from the CBI, wherein the CBI has stated that upon examination of the allegations made in the writ petition, and on the basis of available record, prima facie, material worth registering a Preliminary Enquiry is available to substantiate the allegations of financial irregularities and undue favour extended by the suspect officers of the Department of Horticulture, Government of Uttarakhand, to private nurseries. This Court was also informed by the learned Advocate General that the State had taken a decision to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to look into the entire scam. We had expressed our apprehension that the State was avoiding entrustment of the cases to the CBI, and that the SIT apparently was constituted to avoid the said entrustment of the investigation to the CBI. 15. The matter was, thereafter, again taken up on 09.08.2023, when we passed the following order : “In WPPIL No. 25 of 2023, when we passed the initial order on 01.03.2023, we took into account the serious allegations made by the petitioner, with regard to the conduct of respondent nos. 6 to 10 in the matter of procurement of winter fruit plants by the State, and also referred to some of the documents placed on record by the petitioner. We had observed, that the facts brought on record by the petitioner, and the issues raised by the petitioner, raise a very grave and serious concern about the impact on horticultural activities in the State of Uttarakhand. The conduct of respondent No. 11, prima facie, appeared to be questionable, and we had observed that there was a lot of explanation that the respondent authorities, particularly respondent No. 9, have to provide. Some of the issues, which the said respondents would have to explain, were also taken note of in paragraph no. 10 of our order. 2. We had also required the Secretary, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand to immediately take remedial steps, without waiting for further orders of this Court, after examining the whole matter himself. We had directed that no amount be released to respondent No. 9, till the matter is examined by the Secretary, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare. 2. We had also required the Secretary, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand to immediately take remedial steps, without waiting for further orders of this Court, after examining the whole matter himself. We had directed that no amount be released to respondent No. 9, till the matter is examined by the Secretary, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare. We required the Secretary, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare to satisfy himself, whether any amount due to respondent No. 9, under the allotment letters issued in favour of respondent No. 9, should be withheld or not, and in case the Secretary finds that there is irregularity, he may direct that the amounts payable to respondent No. 9 may be withheld till further orders. 3. On 14.06.2023, it was informed to the Court that, contrary to our order dated 01.03.2023, without the approval of the Secretary, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, an amount of Rs.1,76,98,037/- was released to respondent no. 9 on 02nd and 03rd of March, 2023. For the non-compliance and disobedience of our order, we issued notice to Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, Chief Horticulture Officer, Uttarakashi to show cause, as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him. We were also informed on the said date that respondent no. 11 (Dr. Harminder Singh Baweja) had been suspended, and departmental enquiry had been initiated against him, with the service of charge sheet. 4. On 18.07.2023, the counsel for the CBI tendered in Court a communication, which stated that, upon examination of the allegations made in the Writ Petitions (PILs), and on the basis of available records, prima facie, material, worth registering a Preliminary Enquiry, is available to substantiate the allegations of financial irregularities, and undue favour extended by the suspect officers of the Department of Horticulture, Government of Uttarakhand, to private nurseries. We were informed by Mr. Babulkar, learned Advocate General that the State had taken a decision to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to look into the entire scam. Since that decision had been taken, without first informing this Court, we had expressed our displeasure and kept these matters for today. 5. Mr. Babulkar, learned Advocate General has argued that this Court should give an opportunity to the SIT to discharge its entrusted tasks, and that there is no reason for this Court to assume that the SIT would not undertake the enquiry/ investigation in a fair, transparent and competent manner. 5. Mr. Babulkar, learned Advocate General has argued that this Court should give an opportunity to the SIT to discharge its entrusted tasks, and that there is no reason for this Court to assume that the SIT would not undertake the enquiry/ investigation in a fair, transparent and competent manner. The SIT was constituted by the State on 27.07.2023. Mr. Babulkar has tendered in Court the communication dated 08.08.2023, according to which the SIT, consisting of the following officers, has been constituted :- ^^1- Jh jkepUnz jktxq:] ofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd] vYeksM+k & izFke i;Zos{kd vf/kdkjhA 2- Jh yksd thr flag] iqfyl v/kh{kd@[k.Mkf/kdkjh lh0vkbZ0Mh0] nsgjknwu & lgk;d i;Zos{kd vf/kdkjh@eq[; tk¡p vf/kdkjh ds lg;ksxhA 3- Jherh deyk fc"V] iqfyl v/kh{kd@[k.Mkf/kdkjh lh0vkbZ0Mh0] gY}kuh & eq[; tk¡p vf/kdkjhA 4- Mk0 lqjs'k jke] la;qDr funs'kd m|ku funs'kky; pkScfV;k jkuh[ksr uksMy vf/kdkjh & tk¡p Vhe ds leUo;@lg;ksx gsrqA 5- Jh lat; ik.Ms;] fujh{kd lh0vkbZ0Mh0] gY}kuh & lgk;d tk¡p vf/kdkjh izFkeA 6- Jh fgesUnz flag] fujh{kd lh0vkb0ZMh0] nsgjknwu & lgk;d tk¡p vf/kdkjh f}rh;A** 6. This communication also states that the SIT has been required to furnish its report within two weeks. 7. It is argued by Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 6 in WPPIL No. 98 of 2023 and for respondent no. 11 in WPPIL No. 25 of 2023 (Dr. Harminder Singh Baweja), as well as by Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel, who appears for respondent no. 9 in WPPIL No. 25 of 2023 (M/s Anika Traders), that the said respondents have filed their respective counter affidavits, which should be first examined by the Court, before permitting either the SIT, or directing the CBI to carry out any preliminary enquiry, or investigation in the matter, as the case may be. According to them, on the basis of the complaints filed by the petitioner, and on the basis of the materials placed on record, along with the Writ Petition (PILs), no case, much less a case of commission of a cognizable offence, is made out against them. 8. In these proceedings, we are not called upon to carry out an enquiry, or investigation into each and every allegation made by the petitioner of misappropriation, embezzlement, or any wrongdoing by either the government officers, or by private agencies - in collusion with the government officers. 8. In these proceedings, we are not called upon to carry out an enquiry, or investigation into each and every allegation made by the petitioner of misappropriation, embezzlement, or any wrongdoing by either the government officers, or by private agencies - in collusion with the government officers. In fact, the prayer made in WPPIL No. 98 of 2023 is to direct the holding of enquiry into the misappropriation and embezzlement of government money, by respondent nos. 6 to 10 - in collusion with each other, in the matter of procurement of winter fruit plants by the Chief Horticulture Officer, District Nainital. Even in WPPIL No. 25 of 2023, the relief sought by the petitioner is on the same lines. 9. As we have already noticed, when we heard WPPIL No. 25 of 2023 on 01.03.2023, and examined the materials placed on record, we felt that a prima facie case is made out to grant the reliefs sought by the petitioner, and that is why when we issued notice, we also issued directions for stoppage of payment to respondent no. 9 in the said Writ Petition, without the matter being examined by the Secretary, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare. For us, to direct that the matter be enquired into, or investigated by a competent investigation agency, does not require us to first be satisfied about the complete truth of the allegations made by the petitioner, as that exercise would, itself, require detailed investigation, which we are not called upon to carry out in these proceedings. 10. When the High Court directs enquiry/ investigation into a particular transaction, or transactions, brought before the Court by the petitioner, it does not mean that the High Court puts its stamp of approval on the allegations, or finds them to be true. Mere direction issued by the Court for conduct of enquiry or investigation does not, by itself, prejudice the case of any party, and we have no reason to assume that whichever investigation authority, or body, conducts the enquiry or investigation, would not do so in a fair or transparent manner. It goes without saying that the rights of all the persons, against whom enquiry or investigation is undertaken, are preserved, and it is up to them to ventilate their rights, and defend themselves in accordance with law. We, therefore, reject the submissions of Mr. Singh and Mr. It goes without saying that the rights of all the persons, against whom enquiry or investigation is undertaken, are preserved, and it is up to them to ventilate their rights, and defend themselves in accordance with law. We, therefore, reject the submissions of Mr. Singh and Mr. Nautiyal, that we should first, ourselves, examine their defenses, or answers, before permitting the SIT to carry out enquiry or investigation, or directing the CBI to do so. 11. So far as the submission of Mr. Babulkar is concerned, for the present, we are inclined to accept the same, and we are inclined to, therefore, give an opportunity to the SIT to prove itself. We direct the State to file before us, in a sealed cover, the report on the basis of the enquiry/ investigation conducted by the SIT. The steps taken by the SIT, in the course of the enquiry/ investigation conducted by it, should be indicated in its report to be filed before the Court in a sealed cover before the next date. 12. We had, by our order dated 27.06.2023, passed in WPPIL No. 98 of 2023, directed the Secretary, Horticulture and Farmer Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand to seize all the records relating to the contracts in question in the said Writ Petition, as well as in WPPIL No. 25 of 2023 in relation to District Nainital, and to seal the same & ensure that there is no tampering with the records. 13. Mr. Vinay Kumar submits that the petitioner has apprehensions that the persons involved may try to manipulate the records, once they are de-sealed for the purpose of carrying out enquiry/ investigation. 14. We direct that the de-sealing of the records seized by the Secretary, Horticulture and Farmer Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand, which have been seized by him, relating to the contracts in question in the two Writ Petitions in relation to District Nainital, and in respect of any other Districts, shall be undertaken under the supervision of the Secretary, Horticulture and Farmer Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand, and Shri Vivek Srivastava, Registrar (Protocol) of this Court. Once the records are de-sealed, they shall be digitized in their joint supervision, and, thereafter, the records may be made available to the SIT for the purpose of carrying out the enquiry/ investigation. Once the records are de-sealed, they shall be digitized in their joint supervision, and, thereafter, the records may be made available to the SIT for the purpose of carrying out the enquiry/ investigation. They shall ensure that the complete files are duly numbered, and indexed before they are digitized and released for purpose of investigation. 15. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would like to provide material to the SIT, which could assist the SIT in conduct of the enquiry/ investigation. The petitioner may do so, along with a letter. 16. Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, the former Officiating Chief Horticulture Officer, has filed his affidavit in response to the show-cause notice issued by us. Mr. Vinay Kumar states that he would like to respond to the same. He further states that he has asked for certain information under the Right to Information Act, which the Chief Treasury Officer, Uttarkashi has not yet provided. The application made by the petitioner, under the Right to Information Act, should be dealt with, and disposed of by the Chief Treasury Officer, without any delay. Let rejoinder to the affidavit of Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra be filed before the next date. 17. List on 28.08.2023. 18. Copy of this order be provided to the counsels for the parties, by the end of the day.” (emphasis supplied) 16. The State filed a sealed cover containing the progress made in the investigation by the SIT, which was opened by the Court on 06.09.2023. We required the State to file the translated copy of the same. The same was filed, and it was opened on 13.09.2023. Paras 6 to 11 of our order dated 13.09.2023, read as follows : “6. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the CBI. 7. Mr. Dhruv Chandra, proxy counsel for Ms. Manisha Bhandari, learned counsel for respondent no.9 in WPPIL No.98 of 2023. 8. The English translation of the progress report has been filed, and has been perused by us. We have inquired from Mr. Babulkar, learned Advocate General, whether the statement of Dr. Haminder Singh Baweja, Director, Directorate of Horticulture and Food Processing Department, Uttarakhand, has been recorded? Similarly, whether the statement of Mr. Nitin Sharma, Proprietor of M/s Anika Traders has been recorded? We have inquired from Mr. Babulkar, learned Advocate General, whether the statement of Dr. Haminder Singh Baweja, Director, Directorate of Horticulture and Food Processing Department, Uttarakhand, has been recorded? Similarly, whether the statement of Mr. Nitin Sharma, Proprietor of M/s Anika Traders has been recorded? We have also inquired from him as to how the SIT constituted by the State proposes to investigate the case in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, and in the State of Himachal Pradesh, since the allegations have been made against the parties in those states as well. 9. Mr. Babulkar seeks an adjournment to report on the aforesaid aspects. 10. The further status report be filed in a sealed cover along with its English translation before the next date. 11. The status report along with its English translation should again be placed in a sealed cover by the Bench Secretary.” 17. As aforesaid, we have heard detailed submissions of learned counsels today. 18. The Government of Uttarakhand notified the Uttarakhand Fruits Nurseries (Regulation) Act, 2019 with the object of making provisions for issuance of licenses and regulation of Fruit Nurseries in the State of Uttarakhand. Section 9 of the said Act provides for issuance of license for Fruit Nursery and prohibits any person / authority from conducting or carrying on the business of fruit nursery without license. Under the said Act, the Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, Uttarakhand, is the designated licensing authority. Section 4 of the said Act provides for submission of an application for issuance of license, while Section 5 deals with essential conditions for grant of license, and one of such conditions is that the applicant should have a mother block for establishment of the fruit nursery. 19. Mr. Harminder Singh Baweja – respondent No. 11 (in WPPIL No. 25 of 2023) was appointed as the Director, Horticulture and Food Processing, Uttarakhand for a period of one year on deputation on 27.01.2021. He proceeded to, firstly, fix the rates for purchase of fruit trees during the winter and the monsoon seasons. The rates were revised by him on 14.12.2021 for all varieties of Kiwi to Rs.275 per plant. On 07.01.2022, the Uttarakhand Fruit Nursery (Regulation) Rules, 2021 were notified, by invoking the powers as conferred under Section 23 of the Fruit Nursery Act, 2019. The rates were revised by him on 14.12.2021 for all varieties of Kiwi to Rs.275 per plant. On 07.01.2022, the Uttarakhand Fruit Nursery (Regulation) Rules, 2021 were notified, by invoking the powers as conferred under Section 23 of the Fruit Nursery Act, 2019. Under the said Rules, provisions were made for making an application for grant of license and conditions of eligibility for grant of license. Inter alia, the said Rules provide for inspection of the applicants nursery. Rule 9 of the said Rules also require the license applicant / nursery owner to provide the information in writing to the Director, Horticulture through concerned District / Chief Horticulture Officer in respect of the material available in the nursery for the purpose of sale. 20. Respondent No. 9 – M/s Anika Traders (in WPPIL No. 25 of 2023) was issued an undated license. Though the petitioner does not have the particulars of the license, but the case of the petitioner is that on the basis of the said license, respondent No. 9 – M/s Anika Traders has been issued an allotment order for supplying fruit trees such as Apple, Apricot, Walnut, Kiwi and Pear. The petitioner has placed on record a report prepared by the District Magistrate, Uttarkashi dated 25.01.2023, according to which, on inspection it was found the M/s Anika Traders was not located at its given address, where it was supposed to have its nursery in village – Oadhgaon. However, it was claimed that the name of the village has wrongly been mentioned, and the same is situated at village – Lodhan, Tehsil – Barkot, District Uttarkashi. However, even at that place, respondent No. 9 – M/s Anika Traders does not have its nursery. It was subsequently claimed that M/s Anika Traders has a one year contract with a Nursery in Jammu and Kashmir, namely, Green Nursery, Qaimoh, District Kulgam, Jammu and Kashmir. 21. Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Kumar submits on the basis of the record, that the application form submitted by M/s Anika Traders for obtaining the license is completely bereft of particulars. 21. Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Kumar submits on the basis of the record, that the application form submitted by M/s Anika Traders for obtaining the license is completely bereft of particulars. He also points out that as per the information uploaded on the website of National Horticulture Board, the said Green Nursery in Kulgam, Jammu and Kashmir has mother stock of Apply only, and not for other fruits and the total production capacity of the said Nursery is 41,000 saplings, whereas allotment order has been issued in favour of M/s Anika Traders for over one lakh saplings. 22. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that Secretary, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun has called for an explanation from M/s Anika Traders, but no action has been taken till date. In fact, respondent No. 11 – Dr. Harminder Singh Baweja has issued another allotment letter in favour of M/s Anika Traders. 23. Petitioner made several representations to the different authorities of the State of different dates alleging the financial irregularities committed by Dr. Harminder Singh Baweja and lastly, on his representation, on 14.09.2022, the Minister of the State for Agriculture and Farmer, Agriculture, Government of Uttarakhand to inquire into the matter and submit his report within fifteen days, but even after a lapse of 15 days, the inquiry could not be concluded and nothing fruitful was done. 24. Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is large scale financial irregularity committed by several officers of the State – in the Horticulture department, in collusion with the private operators within the State, such as Anika Traders, and outside the State – in Jammu & Kashmir, and Himachal Pradesh, such as Barkat Agro Farms and Vishal Nursery, within needs to be unearthed and the money trial needs to be unearthed and exposed. As an instance, he has drawn the attention of the Court to the affidavit filed by respondent No. 9 in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 98 of 2023. M/s Barkat Agro Farms, respondent No. 9, has placed on record its communication dated 29.03.2023, addressed to the Chief Horticulture Officer, Nainital, Uttarakhand, on the subject “Supply of True to the Type Apple Fruit Plants based on Colonial Root Stock”. M/s Barkat Agro Farms, respondent No. 9, has placed on record its communication dated 29.03.2023, addressed to the Chief Horticulture Officer, Nainital, Uttarakhand, on the subject “Supply of True to the Type Apple Fruit Plants based on Colonial Root Stock”. The said communication shows that Barkat Agro Farms introduced itself by this communication, and stated that they agree to supply the quality planting material on 50% subsidy / grant under Mukhya Mantri Integrated Development of Horticulture – MIDH Scheme. The balance 50% payment shall be collected from the farmer in the upcoming 2 years after satisfactory survival of plants. The letter further states that the 50% payment shall be claimed by them from the Department of Horticulture, Uttarakhand. Mr. Kumar points out that, even though, this communication is of 29.03.2023, a huge amount of rupees four crores had already been paid to them before the issuance of the said communication, and upto 15.02.2023. He has referred to the lorry challans issued by the transporter in respect of the saplings, which show that the delivery of the saplings allegedly took place between 21.01.2023 and 09.12.2023, i.e. much before the issuance of the communication dated 29.03.2023 by M/s Barkat Agro Farms. He submits that, either the said communication has been fabricated, or the lorry challans have been fabricated. He has also submitted that the scam involves even the political class in the State. He has referred to the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 7, i.e., the Officiating Chief Horticulture Officer, Bhimtal, District Nainital, filed by Sri Rajendra Kumar Singh and, in particular, he has drawn the attention of the Court to the document filed by him at page 325 of the counter-affidavit. The said document is a tabulation showing the issuance of the Clonal Root Stocks of Apple to various farmers by the Horticulture Mobile Team, Betalghat during 2022-2023. He submits that out of 3100 Clonal Root Stocks distributed by the said mobile team, 2402 were distributed to only one person, i.e., Satish Nainwal, who is also the brother of Dr. Pramod Nainwal, the sitting MLA. He submits that it requires examination – whether such a large number of Clonal Root Stocks were indeed allotted to Satish Nainwal, since Satish Nainwal and his family, did not own sufficient land for planting such a large number of plants. He submits that Dr. Pramod Nainwal, the sitting MLA. He submits that it requires examination – whether such a large number of Clonal Root Stocks were indeed allotted to Satish Nainwal, since Satish Nainwal and his family, did not own sufficient land for planting such a large number of plants. He submits that Dr. Pramod Nainwal has also issued a communication, certifying that the Clonal Root Stocks of Apple and Kiwi, numbering nearly 3000, planted on his land are safe and secure, and that they are of high quality. 25. Mr. Kumar submits that the SIT has not conducted any enquiry into aspects beyond the record produced before this Court. Even that is superficial and incomplete. He submits that neither the SIT, nor the investigation machinery in the State, has the experience, or the competence to investigate the large scale scam which has taken place throughout the State, and which extends even beyond the boundaries of the State, as several parties from Jammu & Kashmir, and Himachal Pradesh, are also involved. The money trail would have to be investigated to identify the actual beneficiaries of the huge amounts of money, which have been transferred from the State treasury into the accounts of private parties situated outside the State, in a clandestine and hurried manner. 26. Mr. Kumar submits that the State did not act in the matter to unearth the scam and the criminality in the conduct of Dr. Baweja, despite repeated complaints, as taken note of hereinabove, and even after the present public interest litigations were filed, it is only when this Court called for a response from the CBI, and the CBI reported that a prima facie case is made out for registration of a Preliminary Enquiry, that the State constituted the SIT, only with a view to oppose the transfer of the enquiry and investigation into the case by the CBI. In support of his submission that the present is a fit case for directing the CBI to enquire into the matter, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and others Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others (2010) 3 SCC 571 . In support of his submission that the present is a fit case for directing the CBI to enquire into the matter, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and others Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others (2010) 3 SCC 571 . In this case, the Supreme Court considered the issue – whether the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can direct the Central Bureau of Investigation, established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, to investigate a cognizable offence, which is alleged to have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of a State, without consent of the State. The High Court, while expressing strong reservations about the impartiality and fairness in the investigation of the State police -because of the political fallout, and in the background of the case, directed handing over of the investigation into the case by the CBI. The State of West Bengal was aggrieved by that decision of the High Court. The conclusions drawn by the Supreme Court are set out in Para 68 of the judgment. Sub-para (vii) of Para 68, Para 69, and Para 70 of the judgment are relevant, and the same read as follows : “68(vii). When the Special Police Act itself provides that subject to the consent by the State, CBI can take up investigation in relation to the crime which was otherwise within the jurisdiction of the State police, the Court can also exercise its constitutional power of judicial review and direct CBI to take up the investigation within the jurisdiction of the State. The power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be taken away, curtailed or diluted by Section 6 of the Special Police Act. Irrespective of there being any statutory provision acting as a restriction on the powers of the Courts, the restriction imposed by Section 6 of the Special Police Act on the powers of the Union, cannot be read as restriction on the powers of the constitutional courts. Therefore, exercise of power of judicial review by the High Court, in our opinion, would not amount to infringement of either the doctrine of separation of power or the federal structure. 69. Therefore, exercise of power of judicial review by the High Court, in our opinion, would not amount to infringement of either the doctrine of separation of power or the federal structure. 69. In the final analysis, our answer to the question referred is that a direction by the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within the territory of a State without the consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly. 70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be assed as a matter of routine or merely because a party as levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.” 27. Mr. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.” 27. Mr. Kumar submits that the huge scam which has taken place directly impinges on the fundamental and legal rights of the citizens of the State. The State exchequer has been defrauded depriving the citizens and residents of the State of the right to benefit from the State resources. Moreover, a very large number of Clonal Root Stocks, seeds, and saplings, have been distributed, or are at least claimed to have been distributed, within the State, the quality whereof is highly doubtful, in the facts and circumstances of the case. The adverse impact of planting inferior quality plants in the State would be felt over a long period of time, after they attain the age, when they bear fruit, or are expected to bear fruit. 28. The petitions are opposed by Mr. Babulkar, the learned Advocate General. He submits that the Chief Minister had himself directed that Dr. Baweja be suspended, and disciplinary action be taken against him. Consequently, Dr. Baweja was suspended even before this Court passed any orders, on the directions of the Chief Minister, and departmental enquiry is also pending against him. Moreover, the State has already constituted the SIT, which has carried out detailed enquiry into various aspects. He submits that once the case is registered, investigation under the Code of Criminal procedure shall be undertaken, and the State police has the statutory powers to investigate parties, who are outside the State. He submits that transfer of enquiry / investigation into the case to the CBI would demoralize the State police, and, therefore, should not be resorted to. 29. He also places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal (supra). He has also relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand Vs. Shiv Shankar Sharma and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1541; Himanshu Kumar and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 884, and; Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2008) 2 SCC 409 , in support of his submissions. Mr. Babulkar submits that the petitioner cannot seek investigation by any named agency. Shiv Shankar Sharma and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1541; Himanshu Kumar and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 884, and; Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2008) 2 SCC 409 , in support of his submissions. Mr. Babulkar submits that the petitioner cannot seek investigation by any named agency. He further submits that before seeking such a relief, the petitioner should first have approached the State, and only if he was not satisfied with the action taken by the State, he had a right to approach the Court. 30. Mr. Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel, has appeared for M/s Anika Traders and Nursery; and Mr. Murari Tiwari along with Mr. Aditya Singh, have appeared on behalf of Dr. Baweja, to oppose the transfer of the enquiry / investigation into the case, to the CBI. They have also sought to urge that there is no wrongdoing on their respective part. So far as Dr. Baweja and M/s Anika Traders – and for that matter, the other private persons involved in the case are concerned, in our view, they have no locus standi to oppose the transfer, or handing over of the case to the CBI for conduct of Preliminary Enquiry, at this stage. The enquiry has to be conducted in respect of the allegations made against them, and it cannot be their concern, as to which agency conducts the enquiry / investigation. It is not their case that the CBI will not act competently or fairly in the matter. No allegation of mala fidies or bias has been made against the CBI as an agency, or against any particular officer of the CBI. So far as the submission of Mr. Nautiyal that the allegations made by the petitioners against M/s Anika Traders and Nursery, are not true, is concerned, in these proceedings, we are not undertaking enquiry into the correctness of those allegations, as we have already noticed in our earlier orders, which have been extracted hereinabove. Prima facie, serious infirmities and possible financial irregularities have taken place in respect of the transactions and dealings undertaken by the Horticulture department of the State under the leadership of Dr. Baweja, with, at least, M/s Anika Traders, Barkat Agro Farms, and Vishal Nursery. Even the CBI has taken the stand that, prima facie, a case is made out for registration of a Preliminary Enquiry. Baweja, with, at least, M/s Anika Traders, Barkat Agro Farms, and Vishal Nursery. Even the CBI has taken the stand that, prima facie, a case is made out for registration of a Preliminary Enquiry. The State itself has constituted the SIT – though much after these petitions were preferred, and the Preliminary Enquiry done till now also seeks to implicate various officers and entities. Therefore, there is no merit in the submission of the private respondents that no enquiry, or investigation, should be undertaken in the matter. 31. As we have already noticed hereinabove, complaints against Dr. Baweja started pouring in since 2022. Financial irregularities were pointed out at the hands of Dr. Baweja and others. No doubt, the State initiated a departmental enquiry against Dr. Baweja and suspended him on the orders of the Chief Minister. However, no endeavour was made to examine the criminality in the whole matter, which involves various other officers within the State, and parties even beyond the State, to unearth the scam and the related financial irregularities committed by Dr. Baweja, the other officers of the Horticulture Department and the private parties. Nothing prevented the State from registering a case and taking up investigation in right earnest. The present petitioners filed one petition after another, upon further alarming and objectionable actions being taken by Dr. Baweja, and his team of officers. Even then, it did not ring the bell, and the State kept quiet in the matter. It was only when this Court called for and obtained the view of the Central Bureau of Investigation on the issue, whether a case worth registering a Preliminary Enquiry is made out, or not, that the learned Advocate General stated before the Court on 18.07.2023, that the State had taken a decision to constitute Special Investigation Team to look into the entire scam. 32. We have perused the report prepared by the SIT, and we agree with the submission of Mr. Kumar, that the SIT appears to have acted only passively, inasmuch as, only the record produced by the petitioner has partially and superficially been looked into, and there is no proactive approach adopted by the SIT to unearth the complete scam. The involvement of the bureaucracy, along with the private entities, in the scam cannot be ruled out. Kumar, that the SIT appears to have acted only passively, inasmuch as, only the record produced by the petitioner has partially and superficially been looked into, and there is no proactive approach adopted by the SIT to unearth the complete scam. The involvement of the bureaucracy, along with the private entities, in the scam cannot be ruled out. There is absolutely no explanation – as to why the State did not swing into action when complaints were made by the petitioners and others regarding the conduct of Dr. Baweja and the other officers in collusion with the private entities aforesaid. There is no explanation – as to why the State did not wake up even after the filing of these petitions, and why the decision to constitute the SIT was communicated to this Court only on 18.07.2023, when these petitions were pending since the beginning of the year. Dr. Baweja appears to be influential and well connected, as, despite his being suspended, and enquiry being ordered against him, no further action has been taken against him. It is a sorry state of affairs, where the political leadership appears to be keen to take corrective and remedial steps, but the bureaucracy seems to be dragging its feet. 33. The Supreme Court in State of West Bengal (supra) has recognized the power of the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to direct the CBI to take up investigation in relation to the crime which was otherwise within the jurisdiction of the State police, and the Supreme Court has held that the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be taken away, curtailed or diluted by Section 6 of the Special Police Act. The said restriction is on the powers of the Union, and not on the powers of the constitutional courts. The Supreme Court has recognized that the High Court being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, the Supreme Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly. We are conscious of the words of caution found in para 70 of the judgment in State of West Bengal (supra). We are conscious of the words of caution found in para 70 of the judgment in State of West Bengal (supra). In our view, the present is not a case where merely some allegations have been made by the petitioner against the State. The petitioners have supported their allegations with record, some of which has been seen by us, which indeed raise serious issues and probabalise a public fraud. The State has failed in acting in the matter, despite the scam emerging for everyone to see. 34. Reliance place by Mr. Babulkar on State of Jharkhand (supra) and, in particular, on Paras 12 and 13, is of no avail. The Supreme Court observed in Paras 12 and 13 of this judgment as follows : “12. This Court in Kunga Nima Lepcha v. State of Sikkim (2010) 4 SCC 513 , under similar circumstances has held that a writ court is not an appropriate forum for seeking an initiation of such an investigation. A reference to the facts of Kunga Nima Lepcha (supra) would be relevant for our purposes. In the above case, a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed directly before this Court where the petitioner had alleged that the incumbent Chief Minister of the State of Sikkim (impleaded respondent No.2) had misused his public office and had amassed assets disproportionate to his known source of income. It was also alleged that the Chief Minister has misappropriated a large volume of public money at the cost of Government of India and the Government of Sikkim. Thus, the relief sought by the petitioner was for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the CBI to investigate the allegations that have been made against the Chief Minister. This Court declined to intervene in the matter holding that a constitutional court is not a forum to seek redressal of this nature. The remedies evolved by way of writ jurisdiction are of extraordinary nature and reliefs cannot be granted as a matter of due course, where the statutory remedies are available to the petitioner. In Paras 14 to 17 of the judgment it was said as follows: “14. In the present petition, the petitioners have made a rather vague argument that the alleged acts of corruption on part of Shri Pawan Chamling amount to an infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In Paras 14 to 17 of the judgment it was said as follows: “14. In the present petition, the petitioners have made a rather vague argument that the alleged acts of corruption on part of Shri Pawan Chamling amount to an infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We do not find any merit in this assertion because the guarantee of “equal protection before the law” or “equality before the law” is violated if there is an unreasonable discrimination between two or more individuals or between two or more classes of persons. Clearly, the alleged acts of misappropriation from the public exchequer cannot be automatically equated with a violation of the guarantee of “equal protection before the law”. 15. Furthermore, we must emphasise the fact that the alleged acts can easily come within the ambit of statutory offences such as those of “possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income” as well as “criminal misconduct” under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The onus of launching an investigation into such matters is clearly on the investigating agencies such as the State Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) among others. It is not proper for this Court to give directions for initiating such an investigation under its writ jurisdiction. 16. While it is true that in the past, the Supreme Court of India as well as the various High Courts have indeed granted remedies relating to investigations in criminal cases, we must make a careful note of the petitioners' prayer in the present case. In the past, writ jurisdiction has been used to monitor the progress of ongoing investigations or to transfer ongoing investigations from one investigating agency to another. Such directions have been given when a specific violation of fundamental rights is shown, which could be the consequence of apathy or partiality on the part of investigating agencies among other reasons. In some cases, judicial intervention by way of writ jurisdiction is warranted on account of obstructions to the investigation process such as material threats to witnesses, the destruction of evidence or undue pressure from powerful interests. In all of these circumstances, the writ court can only 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. In all of these circumstances, the writ court can only 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 and it is up to the investigating agencies themselves to decide whether the material produced before them provides a sufficient basis to launch an investigation. 17. It must also be borne in mind that there are provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure which empower the courts of first instance to exercise a certain degree of control over ongoing investigations. The scope for intervention by the trial court is hence controlled by statutory provisions and it is not advisable for the writ courts to interfere with criminal investigations in the absence of specific standards for the same.” 13. This Court, thus declined to interfere in the matter holding that the petitioner must approach the investigating agencies directly with the incriminating material and then it is for the investigating agencies to decide on the further course of action. Although an apprehension was raised by this Court that it is possible that the efforts of the petitioner to uncover alleged corruption may be obstructed by entrenched interests, yet statutory remedies available to the petitioner must be first exhausted and only thereafter can he approach the High Court. In the present case no such effort has been made by the respondent (i.e., the petitioner in the PIL) to approach the statutory authorities in any manner whatsoever. The fundamental requirement for the issuance of a writ of mandamus is that the petitioner must have sought such a relief before the appropriate authority and only when it is denied the Court can be approached for a writ a mandamus. This principle cannot be ignored merely because this Court is dealing with a Public Interest Litigation. With regard to the present Public Interest Litigations before us, it is an admitted fact that the respondent has not taken any steps in approaching the statutory authorities or made any effort in the registration of an FIR.” 35. In Para 12 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgment in Kunga Nima Lepcha Vs. State of Sikkim (2010) 4 SCC 513 . In Para 12 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgment in Kunga Nima Lepcha Vs. State of Sikkim (2010) 4 SCC 513 . In Kunga Nima Lepcha (supra), the Supreme Court emphasises the fact that the alleged acts of corruption against Chief Minister come within the ambit of statutory offense such as those of “possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income” as well as “criminal misconduct” under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the onus of launching an investigation into such matters is clearly on the investigating agencies such as the State Police, Central Bureau of Investigation or the Central Vigilance Commission among others, and that it was not proper for the Supreme Court to give directions for initiating such an investigation under writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that it was not viable for a writ court to order the initiation of an investigation except in exceptional case, some of which are taken note of in Para 16 of the judgment in Kunga Nima Lepcha (supra). The function to direct initiation of investigation lies in the domain of the executive and it is up to the investigating agencies themselves to decide whether the material produced before them provides a sufficient basis to launch an investigation. 36. There can be no quarrel with this proposition, and we are conscious of the same. We are, therefore, not inclined to direct the CBI to register a case and cause an investigation, since we are conscious of this aspect, even when we issued our order dated 27.06.2023, in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 98 of 2023. We required the CBI to examine the allegations made in the writ petition, supported with documents, and to respond on the next date – “whether a case worth registering a Preliminary Enquiry, is made out, or not”. The observation made in Para 13 of the judgment in State of Jharkhand (supra), relied upon by the learned Advocate General, is not attracted in the facts of this case, for the reason that the writ petitioners have repeatedly made representations and complaints, but to no avail. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioners have straight away approached this Court to seek a direction for entrustment of the case to the CBI. 37. Mr. Babulkar has also placed reliance on Himanshu Kumar (supra). Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioners have straight away approached this Court to seek a direction for entrustment of the case to the CBI. 37. Mr. Babulkar has also placed reliance on Himanshu Kumar (supra). He has particularly placed reliance on Para 44 of this judgment, which reads as follows : “44. It is now settled law that if a citizen, who is a de facto complainant in a criminal case alleging commission of cognizable offence affecting violation of his legal or fundamental rights against high Government officials or influential persons, prays before a Court for a direction of investigation of the said alleged offence by the CBI, such prayer should not be granted on mere asking. A Constitution Bench of this Court, in the case of the State of West Bengal and others v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571 , has made the following observations pointing out the situations where the prayer for investigation by the CBI should be allowed : “70.… In so far as the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such powers should be exercised, but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.” (emphasis supplied) 38. The above extract would show that the Supreme Court relied upon its earlier decision in State of West Bengal (supra). The Supreme Court observed that the prayer for directing the investigation by the CBI into the alleged offence “should not be granted on mere asking”. Once again, we find that there can be no quarrel with such proposition. The above extract would show that the Supreme Court relied upon its earlier decision in State of West Bengal (supra). The Supreme Court observed that the prayer for directing the investigation by the CBI into the alleged offence “should not be granted on mere asking”. Once again, we find that there can be no quarrel with such proposition. For the reasons already indicated hereinabove, we are of the view, that this decision also is of no avail to the State. 39. Lastly, Mr. Babulkar has placed reliance on Sakiri Vasu (supra), and, in particular, on Para 10 thereof. In Para 10, the Supreme Court relied upon CBI Vs. Rajesh Gandhi, (1996) 11 SCC 253 , to say that no one can insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency. This observation of the Supreme Court is not apposite in the facts of the case. The initial petition filed by the petitioners shows that the petitioners desire an enquiry and investigation by an independent agency into the wrongdoings of Dr. Baweja and others. However, as the situation developed, and more and more glaring developments took place, eventually the petitioners have prayed that the case should be entrusted to CBI. The petitioners are not “aggrieved parties”. The petitioners have preferred these petitions in public interest, with no personal interest. It is we, who are convinced that for maintaining credibility and confidence in the enquiry and possible investigation into the sordid affair, that the case should be entrusted to the CBI, which is an independent, responsible and reputed agency constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. 40. In these circumstances, we are of the view that to instill credibility and confidence in the enquiry / investigation, and also keeping in view the fact that the case has national ramifications, inasmuch as, it involves parties in different States, and would require investigation into aspects of a possible criminal conspiracy and flow of money from the coffers of the State into the coffers of private parties, and also to unearth the money trail, we are of the considered view that the present is a fit case for directing the CBI to register a Preliminary Enquiry, and if upon the conduct of Preliminary Enquiry, a cognizable offence is disclosed, to register a case, and conduct further investigation in the matter, and take it to its logical conclusion. 41. 41. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow these petitions, and direct the CBI to register a Preliminary Enquiry into the matter. The CBI shall conduct the Preliminary Enquiry, and if a cognizable offence is made out, shall proceed to register a case, and cause investigation thereof. The CBI shall take the case to its logical conclusion. We direct the State to fully cooperate with the CBI, and to make available to the CBI, all the original records of the case, and to provide such other and further information and documents, as may be called for by the CBI during the course of its Preliminary Enquiry, or subsequent investigation. The report prepared by the SIT, along with all the materials gathered by the SIT, shall also be entrusted to the CBI. The CBI is directed to expedite its Preliminary Enquiry into the matter. We hope and expect the CBI to conclude the Preliminary Enquiry within the next three months. 42. The petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 43. Consequently, all pending applications in these petitions also stands disposed of.