ORDER
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. The above writ petition was disposed of on 4th March, 1997, declining to issue a writ of mandamus, but observing as under: “We hope and trust that CBI will complete the preliminary inves tigation of all aspects which are before it in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court to which we have re ferred to above.”
2. Petitioner had subsequently, on 11.7.1997, filed a review application, viz. RA. 33/97, seeking recall of the above order. The said application, at the request of the petitioner, was treated as an application for ‘directions’ and notice was issued to the respondent Central Bureau of Investigation.
3. RA. 33/97 was disposed of vide order dated 15.7.1998, giving certain directions to the Central Bureau of Investigation, which are reproduced for facility of reference:
(i) Let the Central Bureau of Investigation, while referring to our order, write again to the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes and to the Enforcement Directorate, to respond within two months. If they fail to, let their intransigence be brought to our notice.
(ii) Let the Central Bureau of Investigation inform the Income Tax authorities about the unexplained assets of the son of Sita Ram Kesri and know from them, within two months of the furnishing of the information, the action taken. If the Income Tax authorities fail to respond, let us know. In the meanwhile, let the Central Bureau of Investigation probe further as to whether the source of those huge assets is relatable to Sita Ram Kesri.
(iii) Let the Central Bureau of Investigation examine the income tax returns of Sita Ram Kesri and Congress Party for the relevant period to know as to whether disbursement of Sita Ram Kesri’s household expenses by the party is borne out from there or not? A complete statement be submitted to us.
(iv) The Central Bureau of Investigation knows it too well that offering bribe to a public servant is an offence under the prevention of Corruption Act. Since some MLAs have directly alleged making of such offer in connection with the election of Sita Ram Kesri, should a case be not registered? Let the Central Bureau of Investigation give further thought to it and let us know the result.
4. The Central Bureau of Investigation, pursuant to the aforesaid directions, carried out further investigations and followed up the matter with the other concerned departments. The CBI has also reconsidered the matter of registration of case regarding offer of bribe in relation to the election of Shri Sita Ram Kesri. The CBI, in compliance of the directions given from time to time, during the investigations, has filed on record the following:
(i) Affidavit of the CBI Officer dated 1.8.97 in RA No. 33/97 in CMP No. 4257/96.
(ii) Report (Status) dated 8.8.97 in RA No. 33/97 in CMP No. 4257/96.
(iii) Report dated 14.8.1997 in RA No. 33/97 in CMP No. 4257/96.
(iv) Report dated 11.9.1997 in RA No. 33/97 in CMP No. 4257/96.
(v) Report dated 13.10.1997 in RA No. 33/97 in CMP No. 4257/96.
(vi) Report dated 24.11.1997 in RA No. 33/97 in CMP No. 4257/96.
(vii) Report dated 15.09.1998 in RA No. 33/97 in CMP No. 4257/96.
(viii) Report dated 27.11.1998 in RA No. 33/97 in CMP No. 4257/96.
5. Apart from the above, the Central Bureau of Investigation has filed an affidavit dated 28.11.1998, wherein the CBI, based on the status reports filed for the perusal of this Court indicated the investigations made and conclusions reached in respect of each of the allegations that had been made. A copy of the said affidavit had been supplied to the petitioner through his counsel.
6. Counsel for the parties were heard. On a perusal of the status reports filed on record and, in particular, after the issuance of the notice in the application we find that the CBI after a detailed enquiry and investigation has reached the conclusion that the allegations were not actionable. It has also reached the conclusion, based on the investigation carried out by the Income Tax authorities, that there was no evidence to link the funds of Shri Sita Ram Kesri with the assets belonging to Shri Amar Nath Kesri or his family members. The tax authorities have also inquired into and scrutinised the expenditure borne on Shri Sita Ram Kesri and have found the same to have been reflected in the accounts of the AICC. The CBI has also reached the conclusion that evidence was not available for registration of a case of offering bribe to the MLAs of Bihar in connection with the election of Shri Sita Ram Kesri.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while urging that in his view case was liable to be registered on the basis of the oral submissions made by the former MLAs of bribe having been offered, submits that in view of the affidavit dated 28.11.1996 filed by the CBI, no useful purpose would be served by pursuing the matter through the CBI, especially considering the position taken by them.
8. Having considered the entire matter and after having perused the status reports, we are of the view that the concerned investigation agencies have investigated and inquired into the allegations made in detail and reached their conclusions, as noted earlier. It is not for us to go into the merits and demerits of the conclusions reached or review the decision taken by them.
9. We are, therefore, of the view that no further orders are called for in the matter. We shall not be taken to have expressed any opinion on the merits and demerits of the conclusions reached by the CBI. It would be open to the petitioner, if unsatisfied with the conclusions reached by the CBI and if so advised, to take recourse to such legal remedies, as may be available to him at law.