Mps Greenery Developers Ltd. And ... vs The State Of West Bengal And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2760 Cal

Daily List 13 .
Bpg.

April 12,
2021


                    In the High Court at Calcutta
                     Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                         (Via Video Conference)

                            W.P.A. No.3832 of 2020


                      MPS Greenery Developers Ltd. and another
                                  Versus
                       The State of West Bengal and others



                        Mr.Udayan Chakraborty,
                        Mr. Ashok Gupta,
                        Mr. Ajoy Lal Acharjee,
                        Mr. Dipankar More,
                        Ms. Avantika Bhartia.
                                           ...for the petitioners.


                        Mr.Y.J. Dastoor,
                        Mr. P. Edulji,
                        Mr. Amajit De.
                                           ...for the CBI.

                        Mr. Amitesh Banerjee,
                        Mr. Tarak Karan.
                                ...for the State.



                          At   the   outset,    learned    senior   counsel

                  appearing for the CBI as well as for the State of West

                  Bengal take a preliminary objection as to the

                  maintainability of the writ petition.        Apart from

                  arguing that a previous application of the petitioner

                  for bail in connection with the self-same proceeding

                  was dismissed by a Division Bench only recently, it is
                      2




also submitted that it is beyond the scope of the writ

court to grant the reliefs as prayed for.

         Such contentions are controverted by learned

counsel for the petitioners.

         It appears from the reliefs claimed in the writ

petition that, whatever may be the language in which

the reliefs are couched, one of the challenges of the

writ petitioners is against the authority of the CBI to

investigate into the matter on the ground that, in view

of having been granting provisional registration under

Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Act,

1992 as per the direction of this Court, the petitioner-

company cannot be labelled as a chit fund within the

purview of the relevant Act, in view of Section 11 AA

(3)(vii) of the SEBI Act of 1992.

         As far as the other contention of the

petitioners, that the petitioners are not bound by the

order   of   the   Supreme     Court   which       conferred

jurisdiction on the CBI to continue such investigation

is concerned, although the relief of           a    blanket

declaration that the Supreme Court order is not

binding on the petitioners is beyond the purview of

this Court to grant, the plinth of the challenge being

that the petitioner-company cannot be labelled as a

chit fund for prosecution against it by the CBI, there

is a subtle difference between the decision arrived at
                       3




by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported at

(2014) 8 SCC 768 (Subrata Chattoraj          Vs. Union of

India and others) and the scope of the present

challenge. Although, apparently, the said directive of

the Supreme Court as incorporated in the cited report

conferred power on the CBI to conduct further

investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of the

Criminal Procedure Code in relation to any case

where a charge-sheet has already been presented

before the jurisdictional court as well as all cases in

which the investigation was yet to be completed at the

juncture when the Supreme Court order was passed

registered against any other company up to the date

of that order, the basic challenge involved in the

present   writ   petition   is   whether,   despite   being

conferred such power to continue investigation by

virtue of the said order of the Supreme Court, in the

particular case of the present petitioners, the CBI had

the authority to conduct such investigation in view of

the petitioners not coming within the purview of the

Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning)

Act, 1978 and/or the Chit Funds Act, 1982.

          As such, it cannot be said that the writ

petition ought to be dismissed at the outset on the

ground of maintainability without adjudicating such

question on merits.
                         4




         Accordingly, the respondents are directed to

file their affidavits-in-opposition within four weeks

from date. Reply, if any, shall be filed within a

fortnight thereafter.

It is made clear that all questions, including

the question of maintainability of the writ petition, are

kept open for being argued at the final hearing of the

writ petition.

The writ petition shall next be enlisted for

final hearing along with the pending connected

applications, if any, on June 8, 2021.

The petitioners are directed to serve a

complete copy of the writ petition, including all

volumes and annexures thereto, on the learned

advocates-on-record for the respondent-authorities by

tomorrow.

There is no scope for grant of interim order at

the present stage.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)