JUDGMENT : (Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.) Heard Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. N. Das, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent Nos.2 & 3. 2. This PIL petition is filed on behalf of the petitioners alleging that from the last 15(fifteen) years, more particularly, from the year 2010, unchecked and rampant corruption took place within the 4(four) districts of Bodoland Territorial Council (in short, ‘BTC’), i.e. Kokrajhar, Udalguri, Baksa and Chirang, by which funds were embezzled in all the Departments, such as Panchayat and Rural Development, Welfare of Plain Tribes and Backward Classes, Sports, Agriculture, Textile and Handloom, Information and Public Relation, Transport, Education, Social Welfare, Fishery, etc. by the Executive Members of the BTC, officials, suppliers, etc., causing great prejudice to the public at large which is substantiated by the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (in short, ‘CAG’) on Social, General and Economic (Non-PSUs) sectors for the year ending 31st March, 2018, and social audit of the MGNREGA in BTC conducted by involving Gram Sabha consisting eminent person and group of persons. 3. The petitioners have stated in this petition that the petitioner No.1 has completed LLB and is practicing as an Advocate for earning his livelihood. It is claimed that the petitioner No.1 is working as a Para Legal Volunteer and has also been awarded a certificate by the District Sessions Judge-cum-Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, Kokrajhar, certifying him as the best Para Legal Volunteer for the year 2016-2017 in the Kokrajhar District of Assam. It is claimed that the petitioner No.2 is a social worker and completed Masters Degree in Political Science in the year 2011 and earning his livelihood as a Carrier Counsellor. It is further claimed that in recognition for his outstanding services to the community, the Ministry of Youth Welfare and Sports has awarded National Youth Award, 2012-13 to the petitioner No.2. 4. It is further claimed that in recognition for his outstanding services to the community, the Ministry of Youth Welfare and Sports has awarded National Youth Award, 2012-13 to the petitioner No.2. 4. It is stated in the PIL petition that the petitioners have filed this PIL petition on the basis of personal knowledge, investigation, information gathered under Right to Information Act in respect of various discrepancies and corruption committed by the respondent authorities in implementation of various schemes within the BTC and they are seeking an enquiry/investigation to be carried out by an independent agency such as Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I) to unearth the true facts in respect to the amount of corruption committed within the BTC. 5. In the PIL petition the petitioners have also elaborated the executive functions and overall administration of the Bodoland Territorial Council and it is alleged that while implementing the MGNREGA Scheme launched under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, large scale of irregularities have been taken place while carrying out the various works under the Scheme in the BTC consisting Kokrajhar, Udalguri, Baksa and Chirang District. 6. It is further alleged that Independent Social Audit of MGNREGA in BTC was conducted involving Gram Sabha consisting of eminent persons and groups of persons and as per the said Social Audit, serious irregularities have been found in issuance of Job Cards and in payments made to the individuals which suggest that a large scale of embezzlement took place in implementing the MNREGA Scheme. 7. The petitioners have cited several examples in support of their allegations that a large scale of corruption had taken place in implementing the MGNREGA Scheme, wherein either no payments had been made to the persons in whose names the Job Cards were issued, or the payments were withdrawn on the basis of some fake Job Cards. The petitioners have also alleged that the Bank staffs of different Banks were also involved in fraudulent withdrawal of MGNREGA wages. 8. The petitioners have also placed reliance on the report of the CAG st on Social, General and Economic (Non-PSUs) Sectors for the year ending 31 March, 2018 under the Heading Welfare of Plain Tribes and Backward Classes Department and alleged that huge amount of money was embezzled by the persons involved in procuring items such as mosquito nets, supplying and plantation of saplings etc. Relying on the report of the CAG, it is also alleged that lakhs of rupees were paid to the Consultancy Firm for preparation of Detailed Project Reports. Based on the Report of the CAG, several other allegations have also been levelled, such as non-supply of books to the colleges and institutions, illegalities and irregularities in distribution of Sewing machines (Usha) etc. Allegations regarding non-execution of some development works in particular areas and embezzlement of money in purchasing and distribution of galvanized-sheets to the economically weaker sections have also been levelled. The petitioners have also alleged that there are glaring incidences of fund embezzlement in the above referred Departments due to absence of any system for verification, monitoring of collection of revenue, expenditure incurred on execution of work implementation schemes etc. 9. Based on the said allegations, the petitioners have prayed for granting following relief(s): “In the premises aforesaid it is most respectfully prayed that Your Lordship would graciously be pleased to admit this petition, issue a Rule, call for the records and/or may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to show cause as to why an enquiry by an impartial or independent agency such as CBI or any other agency shall not be conducted to investigate into the rampant corruption that had taken place in all the departments within the BTC from the year 2010 till the year 2020 and/or further direct the respondent authorities to conduct an enquiry by an impartial or independent agency such as CBI or any other agency into the corruption that had taken place in all the departments within the BTC from the year 2010 till the year 2020 in order to unearth the real truth and punish the persons who are guilty as they had caused great misery to the people more particularly the people living under the Below poverty Line and had caused great loss of revenue to the government Exchequer on perusal of records and after hearing the parties, may be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or may further be pleased to pass any other order or orders or directions as to Your Lordships may deem fit and proper so as to give full and complete relief to the petitioners as prayed for by them.” 10. Reply to the writ petition is filed on behalf of the BTC (respondent No.4) only through its Principal Secretary, wherein the allegations levelled in the PIL petition have vehemently been denied and certain documents have also been annexed to demonstrate that the allegations are vague and incorrect. 11. Having gone through the contents of the PIL petition and the material available on record, we are of the view that all acts, which the petitioners have highlighted in this PIL petition are essentially acts of corruption, and embezzlement, which fall within the definition of statutory offence under the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC) and now the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short, BNS), or, are acts of criminal misconduct under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 12. True, an investigation can be initiated either by the State police or by any Central Agency, such as CBI or Central Vigilance Commission etc., in relation to the said allegations, however, it is not the case of the petitioners that they have approached the appropriate authority for launching investigation into the above referred alleged incidences of corruption and/or embezzlement of money. It appears that the petitioners have directly approached this Court by way of filing this PIL petition. 13. Law is well settled that where there is statutory remedy is available to any aggrieved person, seeking investigation to any offence, to approach the appropriate authority for investigation into the offence, the Courts should be slow in passing orders for investigation by the State police or by the Central Agency. 14. A three-Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kunga Nima Lepcha & Ors. -Vs- State of Sikkim & Ors. , reported in (2010) 4 SCC 513, while dealing with a PIL petition, wherein the petitioners therein had sought for a direction for launching an investigation by the Central Agency, has refused to issue such direction by observing as under: “13. However, 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. 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. 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 misappr opriation 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 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. 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. 18. Hence it is our conclusion that the petitioners' prayer cannot be granted. This Court cannot sit in judgment over whether investigations should be launched against politicians for alleged acts of corruption. The Supreme Court of India functions as a constitutional court as well as the highest appellate court in the country. If the Supreme Court gives direction for prosecution, it would cause serious prejudice to the accused, as the direction of this Court may have far-reaching persuasive effect on the court which may ultimately try the accused. It is always open to the petitioners to approach the investigative agencies directly with the incriminating materials and it is for the investigative agencies to decide on the further course of action. While we can appreciate the general claim that the efforts to uncover the alleged acts of corruption may be obstructed by entrenched interests, in this particular case the petitioners would be well advised to rely on the statutory remedies. It is only on the exhaustion of ordinary remedies that perhaps a proceeding can be brought before a writ court and in any case the High Court of Sikkim would be a far more appropriate forum for examining the allegations made in the present petition. 19. It is only on the exhaustion of ordinary remedies that perhaps a proceeding can be brought before a writ court and in any case the High Court of Sikkim would be a far more appropriate forum for examining the allegations made in the present petition. 19. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.” (Emphasis Supplied) 15. Recently, relying on the above referred decision in Kunga Nima Lepcha (supra), a three-Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Jharkhand -Vs- Shiv Shankar Sharma & Ors , reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1541 , has declared a PIL petition pending in the Jharkhand High Court, as not maintainable, while observing as under: “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. ……………. 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. ……………. 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.” 16. In view of the above settled proposition of law, we are of the view that the relief prayed for in this PIL petition cannot be granted to the petitioners. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain this PIL petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to approach the authorities concerned under the State, or the Central Government, or the competent Criminal Court for launching investigation into the alleged incidences of corruption and embezzlement of public money, based on the material relied upon by them.