IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9425 of 2004(V) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. SUDARSAN CHITS SUBSCRIBERS ASSOCIATION, MARUTHATT, NANMINDA P.O., BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BTY ITS PRESIDENT. 2. ABDUL NAZAR.K., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA, KELOTH HOUSE, ATHOLI P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 315 3. P.SHEEJA, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O. UDAYASEKHARAN, PULIKKOOL HOUSE, ATHOLI P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 315. 4. ASOKAN K.K., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. CHANGAROTTY, KUNIKKOOTTATHIL, KANNADIPOYIL PO BALUSSERY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SRI.A.PARVATHI MENON SRI.ANUB ALIAS SMT.PRIYA RAMESH SRI.K.S.MOHAMMED ZIYAD RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. SUDARSAN CHITS (INDIA) LTD., SUDARSAN BUILDING, CHAKKORATHKULAM, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, JUSTICE S.PADMANABHAN. W.P.(C) NO.9425/2008 3. SUDARSHAN TRADING COMPANY, SUDARSAN BUILDING, CHAKKORATHKULAM, KOZHIKODE. 4. MADATHIL VELAYUDHAN S/O. M.KUNHAKKOO, "KAILASH", EAST HILL ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 5. M.ASHOK KUMAR, WHOLE-TIME DIRECTOR, SUDARSAN TRADING COMPANY, CHAKKORATHKULAM, KOZHIKODE 6. V.RAJACHANDRAN, DIRECTOR, SUDARSAN CHITS INDIA LTD., CHAKKORATHKULAM, KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT RATNALAYAM, NEAR STAR TILE WORKS, KOZHIKKODE-3 7. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.DANDAPANI (SR) FOR R2 ADV.MILLU DANDAPANI. ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SC FOR CBI FOR R7 ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. FOR R7 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.9425/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER REF.NO.3/2003 DT.14.11.2003. EXT.P2: COPY OF BALANCE SHEET. EXT.P3: COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DT.21.2.2004. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9425 OF 2004 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners in this writ petition have filed Ext.P3 petition before the Director of C.B.I, which is the 7th respondent herein, seeking investigation into certain commissions and omissions from the part of respondents 2 to 6. Alleging that the C.B.I. did not take any action on the representation, this writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs: “I. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the 7th respondent to conduct an investigation into the conduct of business of the 2nd respondent after the evolution of the scheme of arrangement as approved by this Hon'ble Court; II. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the 7th respondent to conduct an investigation into the payments made by the 2nd respondent company to M/s.Aries & Aries, Chennai. III. Issue a writ of mandamus to directing the 7th respondent to take appropriate action in accordance with law against respondents 4 to 6 and such others after investigations. IV. To issue a writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ prohibiting the 2nd respondent from operating new chits activities pending disposal of the writ petition.” W.P.(C) No.9425/2004 2 2. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, we feel that these are not matters in which the C.B.I. has any jurisdiction to register a crime and investigate directly by it. The petitioners have failed to bring to our notice any statutory provision enabling the C.B.I. to do that. Like praying for judicial enquiry, the petitioners cannot pray for any C.B.I. enquiry. It is a police force, mainly concerned with the investigation of cognizable offences. It is not authorised to investigate crimes committed within various States by Public Limited Companies. In view of the legal position, the C.B.I. does not have any statutory duty to act as prayed for in Ext.P3. The petitioners do not have any legal right in this regard. 3. In view of the above position, no relief could be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners and their rights, if any, to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps