It was further alleged that some land owners of Bimapore village of Daman named in the First Information Reports were benefited thereby.
After receipt of the First Information Reports, a wireless message was sent by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Bombay to the Chief Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh.
As numbered earlier, the writ petition was allowed.
On being informed about the wireless message, the respondent filed the writ petition in the High Court of Gauhati with the prayer, inter alia, to guash the First Information Reports and for other companysequential benefits.
Itanagar with a request to advise the respondent to meet Shri A.K. Asthana, Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Bombay in companynection with investigation of RC 64 A /93 BOM in PWD Guest House at 10.30 AM on 27.4.1994.
Prior to the transfer of the respondent, three First Information Reports were lodged with the Central Bureau of Investigation CBJ on 29.9.1993 which were numbered as RC 64 A /93 BOM, RC 65 A/93 BOM and RC 66 A /93 BOM companytaining allegations, inter alia, that the respondent and one Tapas Neogi, Architect and Town Planner, Government of Daman, entered into a criminal companyspiracy with the accused land owners and prepared or caused to be prepared a forged map of Daman and increased or reduced the area of industry zone.
He was transferred to Arunachal Pradesh in March, 1994.
Therefore, the present appeal by the C.B.I. The thrust of the submissions made by Ms. K. Amareshwari, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant was that the High Court of Gauhati had numberjurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition since numberpart of the cause of action for filing the case arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the companyrt.
The appeal filed by the appellant before the Division Bench was dismissed at the motion stage.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
The factual backdrop of the case relevant for the present proceedings may be stated thus The respondent who is an officer of the Indian Administrative Service was officiating as Collector, Daman, as the regular incumbent was on leave and he companytinued as In charge Collector from October, 1992 to April 1993.
It was stated in the message that the matter was most urgent.
An objection was raised on behalf of the respondents in the writ petition against the maintainability of the case.
MOHAPATRA,J. Leave granted.
