Alternative remedy gives way in extraordinary corruption complaints as HC orders independent preliminary inquiry

Where a complaint disclosed serious allegations of corruption at the highest level of the State police administration and the authorities had taken no meaningful action, the writ court held that the ordinary rule of alternate remedy was not absolute and could yield in an extraordinary case to protect public confidence in law enforcement. It directed an independent preliminary inquiry by the CBI, but did not require immediate FIR registration. Separately, because the State had already constituted a High-Level Enquiry Committee headed by a retired HC Judge, the connected PIL was treated as unnecessary and disposed of.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition complaining of non-registration of a cognizable offence could be entertained despite the availability of an alternative remedy and whether the circumstances justified an independent preliminary inquiry by the CBI. (ii) Whether the connected PIL seeking action on the allegations in the police officer's letter survived after the State constituted a High-Level Enquiry Committee.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition complaining of non-registration of a cognizable offence could be entertained despite the availability of an alternative remedy and whether the circumstances justified an independent preliminary inquiry by the CBI.

Analysis: The complaint placed before the police, read with the annexed letter of the senior police officer, disclosed allegations of serious corruption at the highest level of the State police administration. The Court held that though writ jurisdiction is ordinarily exercised with self-imposed restraint when statutory remedies exist, that rule is not absolute and yields where the remedy is not equally efficacious and the facts disclose an extraordinary situation affecting public confidence in law enforcement. The police had taken no meaningful action on the complaint, nor informed the complainant that no cognizable offence was made out. In the circumstances, the Court held that an independent agency was necessary to secure a fair, honest and untainted inquiry, but immediate registration of an FIR by the CBI was not yet required.

Conclusion: The writ petition was entertained and the CBI was directed to conduct a preliminary inquiry within a short time, with further action to follow in accordance with law.

Issue (ii): Whether the connected PIL seeking action on the allegations in the police officer's letter survived after the State constituted a High-Level Enquiry Committee.

Analysis: The State had already appointed a retired High Court Judge to head a High-Level Enquiry Committee to examine the same allegations. In view of that development, the Court held that the grievance pursued in the PIL no longer required adjudication in the writ proceedings and could not be kept pending awaiting the committee's report.

Conclusion: The connected PIL was held to have become unnecessary and was disposed of.

Final Conclusion: The Court granted limited substantive relief by ordering an independent preliminary inquiry into the complaint, while declining to keep the broader connected PILs alive and disposing of the batch proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: In an extraordinary case involving serious allegations against high public officials and a demonstrable failure of the State machinery to act on a cognizable complaint, the writ court may, despite an alternative remedy, direct an independent preliminary inquiry to preserve public confidence and ensure compliance with the rule of law.

---