Susanta Chalterji, J. - (1.) Having heard further Mr. Roy with Mr. Pratap Chatterjee and Mr. Sibdas Banerjee for the petitioners and Mr. Promode Kumar Roy, Mrs. Uma Sanyal and Mr. A. P. Talukdar for the C.B.I. Authorities and Mr. Anindya Mitra with Mr. Gopal Ghosh and Mr. L. K. Gupta for the State Bank of Indore, it appears that the petitioners, namely, Smt. Purnima Parolia and another have filed the present writ petition praying, Inter alia, for an appropriate writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel, rescind and/or withdraw the Regular Case No. 5/90, 6/90, 7/90, 8/90, 9/90 and 10/90 under Sections 120B/420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also the case arising out of ICZO/59/990 (FERA) and all proceeding connected therewith and arising out of the same and to further forbear the respondents from taking any steps on the basis of the aforesaid proceedings and/or pursuant thereto on the ground that the C.B.I. authorities are not entitled to investigate the alleged offence against the petitioners in terms of the provision of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and furthermore, the respondents authorities have not taken any consent of the State Government to exercise power and jurisdiction in the instant case which is otherwise mandatory. It is alleged in details that at all material times Guru Ispat Limited and its subsidiary Swastik Extrusions Limited carried on their business having diverse bank accounts opened with the State Bank of Indore and the allegations made by the bank authorities as to criminal conspiracy as to offences disclosed in the F.I.R. and the steps taken by the authorities are unwarranted and uncalled for.
(2.) Accordingly, the writ petition was entertained and an interim order was made by A.M. Bhattacharjee, J. on 12.6.80 to the effect that there would be an interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding further with the investigation in respect of the aforesaid h cases. An application for vacating the aforesaid interim order was filed and in terms of the order dated 12.6.80 there was direction of filing affidavits and it was specifically observed that the matter would be taken up for final hearing and the application for vacating the interim order was disposed of. The matter appeared before this Bench and as suggested and I agreed on 5th July, 1991, the matter would be taken up for final hearing. Pursuit to such directions the matter has been taken up for final hearing in presence of the learned Counsel of the respective parties, as indicated above.
(3.) At the time of final hearing a short point has arisen before this court as to whether the C.B.I. Authorities have the jurisdiction to proceed with the investigation. It has been brought to the notice of the court that the respondents bank authorities have filed a comprehensive civil suit for the recovery of the dues. This is obviously not the subject-matter of the present writ petition. It is canvassed before this Court that the proposed investigation by the C.B.I. is unwarranted and uncalled for. Besides, the C.B.I. Authorities have got no jurisdiction to investigate the matter within the State unless there is consent of the State. The relevant provisions have been brought to the notice of the Court that the law is very clear that the provisions of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. XXV of 1946) cannot permit the C.B.I. Authorities to investigate within the State unless there is specific consent.;