CBI investigation in writ jurisdiction requires clear prima facie necessity and exceptional circumstances, not disputed civil allegations.

A direction for CBI investigation in writ jurisdiction is an extraordinary remedy, available only on a clear prima facie showing of necessity in exceptional circumstances such as credibility concerns, national interest, or enforcement of fundamental rights. The Court stated that disputes over a religious trust's property, trustee powers under the trust deed and the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950, and the need for prior sanction and judicial approval for transfer were essentially civil in nature. It further noted that the High Court relied on disputed facts and broad allegations of fraud without adequate foundation and without the usual prior approach to local authorities. On that basis, the CBI direction was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining a public interest writ petition concerning alleged illegal transfer of the property of a religious trust and in directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to take over the investigation.

Analysis: The power to direct investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation is an extraordinary one to be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and only in exceptional situations where the material on record discloses a prima facie need for such direction, or where credibility of investigation, national interest, or enforcement of fundamental rights so requires. The record showed that the dispute arose from competing claims regarding the trustees' power to deal with trust property under the governing trust deed and the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950, including the requirement of prior sanction for transfer and approval by the District Judge. The Court held that the High Court had proceeded on disputed questions of fact, made sweeping observations about fraud and misrepresentation without a proper prima facie foundation, and treated a matter essentially concerning the trustees' rights in relation to religious property as if it were a criminal case warranting CBI investigation. It was also noted that no prior complaint had been made to the local police or public authorities in the manner ordinarily expected before invoking such extraordinary jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation was not justified and could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's order was set aside, and the writ petition stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A direction for CBI investigation in writ jurisdiction can be issued only on a clear prima facie showing of necessity in exceptional circumstances; it cannot be granted on disputed allegations in a matter that is essentially civil in nature.

---