Consent for CBI investigation need not be a speaking order, and a prior final ruling can bar fresh challenge.

Consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was treated as executive permission for CBI investigation, not a sanction requiring a detailed speaking order or recorded reasons; the challenge on that ground failed. The court also held that the earlier writ decision on the same consent order had attained finality and operated as res judicata against a later challenge on the identical issue, even though the present petitioner had not been a party to the earlier proceedings. The writ petition therefore failed on both principal issues, and the consent for CBI investigation was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order dated 25.09.2019 issued under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 was a sanction or a consent. (ii) Whether the earlier decision dismissing challenge to the same order operated as res judicata against the present petition.

Issue (i): Whether the order dated 25.09.2019 issued under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 was a sanction or a consent.

Analysis: Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 contemplates consent of the State Government for extension of CBI jurisdiction within the State. The order, though described as a sanction, was held to be only a consent permitting investigation. The Court relied on precedent that no particular form is prescribed for such consent and that the statute does not require a detailed speaking order or recording of reasons in the same manner as a sanction for prosecution. On that basis, the absence of elaborate reasoning or separate application of mind did not invalidate the order.

Conclusion: The order was a consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and not a sanction requiring detailed reasons, so the challenge on that ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier decision dismissing challenge to the same order operated as res judicata against the present petition.

Analysis: The earlier writ petition and the connected writ appeal had already examined the validity of the very same consent order, including whether application of mind was required. The Court treated that earlier determination as one on the same issue concerning referral to the CBI for investigation, and held that the matter had attained finality. The fact that the present petitioner was not a party to the earlier proceedings did not displace the binding effect of the determination on the identical issue.

Conclusion: The earlier decision operated as res judicata and bound the present challenge.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on both principal issues, and the impugned consent for CBI investigation was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 is an executive permission for investigation that does not require a prescribed form or a detailed speaking order, and an earlier final decision on the same consent order binds subsequent challenges to the identical issue.

---