Writ limits on cryptocurrency regulation, investigation, and compensation claims led to rejection of principal reliefs.

Mandamus cannot be used to compel legislation or policy-making in the absence of an existing statutory public duty, so the prayer to frame and implement a cryptocurrency regulatory framework was declined. A direction for SIT or CBI investigation is an exceptional remedy requiring prima facie material and exceptional circumstances; none was shown, so that request was rejected. Claims for release of funds and compensation were not entertained in writ jurisdiction because they turned on disputed questions of fact, required evidence and cross-examination, and arose from private law disputes rather than public duties. The petition was disposed of with liberty to pursue monetary claims before the appropriate forum.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to direct framing and implementation of a regulatory framework for cryptocurrency exchanges and transactions; (ii) whether a Special Investigation Team or CBI investigation could be ordered on the facts pleaded; (iii) whether the prayer for release of funds and compensation was maintainable in writ jurisdiction despite disputed questions of fact and private law origins.

Issue (i): Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to direct framing and implementation of a regulatory framework for cryptocurrency exchanges and transactions.

Analysis: Mandamus lies to enforce an existing public duty and not to compel the legislature to enact law or the executive to frame policy in the absence of a statutory duty. The Court found no legislative vacuum requiring such a direction and held that a constitutional court cannot assume the role of the legislature.

Conclusion: The prayer for framing or mandating a cryptocurrency regulatory framework was declined.

Issue (ii): Whether a Special Investigation Team or CBI investigation could be ordered on the facts pleaded.

Analysis: Direction to the CBI or a similar agency is an extraordinary remedy, to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances supported by prima facie material. The record disclosed no such exceptional circumstance or sufficient basis warranting such intervention.

Conclusion: The request for constitution of an SIT and for investigation by a special agency was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the prayer for release of funds and compensation was maintainable in writ jurisdiction despite disputed questions of fact and private law origins.

Analysis: The claims for compensation and release of funds depended upon prior determination of liability and involved disputed questions of fact requiring evidence and cross-examination. The entities against whom relief was sought were also held not to be State or public functionaries for the purpose of Article 226, and the dispute was treated as one with private law origins, making writ adjudication inappropriate.

Conclusion: The prayers for release of funds and compensation were not entertained in writ jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of after declining substantive relief on the principal prayers, while leaving the petitioners free to pursue the monetary claims before an appropriate forum.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will not compel legislation or policy-making, will order a CBI-type investigation only in exceptional cases supported by prima facie material, and will decline writ relief where the dispute turns on contested private law issues requiring factual adjudication.

---