JUDGMENT
M.C. Agarwal, J.
1. These writ petitions arise out of the same matter raising similar points. The counsel on both sides are common and the pleadings are identical. They were, therefore, heard together finally at the admission stage and are disposed of by this common order.
2. In writ petition No. 861 of 1996, the petitioner is Rakesh Bagla, who is the Managing Director of M/s. Alfa Castings Private Limited and M/s. Alfa Springs Limited, both having their registered office at City Centre, Mall Road, Kanpur. In Writ Petition No. l of 1997, the petitioners are Nasir Khan, Shaheed Ali and Basiq Ansari. Nasir Khan claims to be a commission agent supplying scrap to M/s. Alfa Castings Private Limited. Shaheed Ali claims to be an excise clerk in M/s. Alfa Springs Limited and Basiq Ansari claims to be working as excise clerk in M/s. Alfa Castings Private Limited. M/s. Alfa Castings Private Limited is said to be engaged in the manufacture of M.S. ingots from iron, iron scrap and sponge iron etc. On the other hand, M/s. Alfa Springs Limited is said to be engaged in the business of manufacturing M.S. bars (saria) for which it purchases M.S. ingots, inter alia, from M/s. Alfa Castings Private Limited.
3. On 21st August, 1996, a team of officers from the Directorate of Anti-Evasion (Central Excise), New Delhi, and the Zonal Office of the Central Excise at Kanpur conducted a search at the two factories of the two companies situated at Orai in District Jalaun. Several incriminating documents were alleged to have been recovered indicating evasion of excise duty and investigation has been started by a team of Central Excise investigators at New Delhi.
4. Section 14 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) confers power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents. The same reads as under:
“14. Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents in inquiries under this Act :-
(1) Any Central Excise Officer duly empowered by the Central Government in this behalf shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry which such officer is making for any of the purposes of this Act. A summons to produce documents or other things may be for the production of certain specified documents or things or for the production of all documents or things of a certain description in the possession or under the control of the person summoned.
(2) All persons so summoned shall be bound to attend, either in person or by an authorised agent, as such officer may direct; and all persons so summoned shall be found to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statement and to produce such documents and other things as may be required : Provided that the exemptions under Sections 132 and 133 of the Code of Civil Procedure (5 of 1908) shall be applicable to requisitions for attendance under this section. (3) Every such inquiry as .aforesaid shall be deemed to be a "judicial proceeding" within the meaning of Section 193 and Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
5. The petitioners contend that investigation under Section 14 of the Act can be conducted at Kanpur also which would avoid causing inconvenience and harassment to the petitioner companies and their witnesses. According to them, the officers from the zonal office at Kanpur also participated in the searches at the two factories as well as the residence of Rakesh Bagla, its Managing Director at Kanpur. It is claimed that having decided to conduct investigation at New Delhi, the respondents issued summons under Section 14 of the Act to Rakesh Bagla for appearance at New Delhi. The first summons was received on 28th August, 1996, requiring his presence on 2nd September, 1996. The petitioner sought an adjournment on the ground that he was unwell. Another summons dated 2nd September, 1996, was issued requiring appearance on 9th September, 1996. Again, the petitioner sought adjournment. A third summons was issued on 9th September, 1996, and again, an adjournment was sought. A fourth summon was issued on 24th September, 1996, requiring the petitioner Rakesh Bagla to appear on 7th October, 1996, and also to direct the employees to appear before the investigating officer on 30th September, 1996. This summons too was not complied with and the petitioner is claimed to have moved an application for supplying photostat copies of certain documents. He claims that the employees could not be traced despite best efforts. A fifth summons was issued on 10th October, 1996, requiring his presence on 17th October, 1996. Again on 16th October, 1996, an application was moved seeking adjournment for one month. Then, a sixth summons was issued on 31st October, 1996, requiring the petitioner’s presence on 6th November, 1996. It is claimed that the petitioner Rakesh Bagla appeared before the senior intelligence officers at New Delhi and he was interrogated on 6th and 7th November, 1996. According to the petitioner, the investigation was completed. It is claimed that the petitioner sent a telegram dated 8th November, 1996, reiterating what he had stated during the interrogation on 6th and 7th November, 1996. It is claimed that such a telegram was given because the respondents had not given any copy of the statement to the petitioner. The respondents are. said to have sent another summons dated 11th November, 1996, requiring his presence on 20th November, 1996. An adjournment was sought on medical grounds. Another summons was issued on 22nd November, 1996, requiring his presence on 2nd December, 1996.
6. It is claimed that, in the meantime, one Nasir Khan (Petitioner No. 1 in the other petition), an employee, and one Shaheed Ali appeared before the investigating team at New Delhi on 21st November, 1996. It is alleged that these witnesses were tortured and were beaten mercilessly and they were released when the wife of Nasir Khan had a telephonic talk from Jhansi with Sri Chandra Bhan, respondent No. 2, a Deputy Director in the Directorate of Anti-Evasion, Central Excise. These two persons are said to have made a complaint of the said misbehaviour to the respondent No. l, the Director General, by filing an affidavit and then filed criminal complaints after getting themselves medically examined. A complaint was made before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, who had summoned the respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4 for offences under Sections 323/325/326/308/364/504 and 506, I.P.C. It is alleged that the investigating team handed by Chandra Bhan was biased against the petitioner and was bent upon making a case with a view to harass him and tarnish his reputation in the society as well as to ruin his business. The petitioner, therefore, also made a complaint to the respondent No.1 seeking his intervention. It is alleged that it was prayed in the said application that Sri Chandra Bhan be removed from the investigating team and the investigation may be conducted at Kanpur and the statement of the petitioner Rakesh Bagla be recorded in the presence of a lawyer and a doctor. It is alleged that, in the meantime, the respondents have also filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, on 15th October, 1996, for the alleged offence of non-compliance of summons.
7. Nasir Khan, petitioner No. 2, is said to have instituted another complaint before a Magistrate at Jhansi. Shaheed AH, the other witness, is said to have appeared before the Magistrate at New Delhi in the case relating to non-compliance of summons and was granted Bail on 17th December, 1996. Yet the investigating team is alleged to have unlawfully attempted to arrest him. When he raised an alarm, the Magistrate made some inquiries from the investigating team and ordered to get the witness medically examined before and after the investigation and to release him before 5.00 p.m. Nasir Khan was interrogated and his counsel Sri S.L. Paul was made to wait outside the office. It is claimed that it is not permissible under the provisions of the Act to torture the witnesses and to make the petitioner and the witnesses run very frequently to Delhi and there is no reason why the investigation should not be conducted at the zonal office. It is claimed that there is no provision in the Act prescribing the manner and the place for conducting the investigation, but it is necessarily implicit that the same should be done at the place where the factory is situate or in its vicinity.
8. It is claimed that use of torture and third degree methods during investigation is illegal and has been deprecated and criticised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by the High Courts. It is claimed that, usually, the trials are held at the place of the incident so that the witnesses are not harassed and, in any case, it is the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur Nagar, before whom the investigating team will submit its report for determining the quantum of duty, if any, to be levied. It is claimed that respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4 are acting arbitrarily and unjustifiably in conducting the investigation at New Delhi. It is claimed that since the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have indulged in torture and use of third degree methods against the petitioner’s employees, it was necessary that the investigating team be changed.
It is on these allegations that the petitioner Rakesh Bagla has prayed for quashing the summons dated 12th December, 1996, for a direction in the nature of mandamus to change the investigating team and for conducting the investigation at Kanpur Nagar or at the place where the factories are situate and a further mandamus to record the statement of the petitioner and his witnesses in the presence of the doctors and lawyers of their choice and to avoid using third degree methods and torture in investigation.
9. As already stated, in writ petition No. 1 of 1997, the petitioners are two employees of the said company and a supplier of iron scrap. It is claimed that the petitioner No. 1, Nasir Khan, was issued summons dated 23rd August, 1996, 10th October, 1996, and 31st October, 1996, for appearance before the respondents, but he could not appear as he remained admitted in the Government District Hospital. In spite of the illness having been reported to respondent No. 4, a complaint for offences under Sections 174/175, Cr.P.C. was filed in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House. The petitioner appeared before the Magistrate and was granted bail on 17th December, 1996. It is claimed that the said Nasir Khan appeared before the respondent No. 4, namely, R.K. Goel, Senior Intelligence Officer, on 21st November, 1996. One Sri Ved Ram Sagar, a retired Income Tax Commissioner and resident of Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, accompanied the petitioners on 21st November, 1996, but he was asked by the respondent No. 4 to go away at the time of their interrogation. While petitioner No. 2 was allowed to go out for lunch. Nasir Khan was forced to remain there continuously. After the office hours that day, when the senior officers of the department left the office, the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are alleged to have beaten the petitioners Nasir Khan and Shaheed Ali. It is also alleged that the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 extracted dictated statements of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 by beating and torturing them. One Rafaqat Ali, who was standing outside the office building of the respondent No. 4, informed the wife of the petitioner No. 1 at Jhansi, about his illegal detention and apprehension of beating and torture on phone at late night of 21st November, 1996. Thereupon, the wife of the petitioner No. 1 talked to Sri Chandra Bhan, respondent No. 2, complaining of misbehaviour with her husband. She is also alleged to have sent a telegram to that effect on 22nd November, 1996. Before their release, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were given summons for appearing the next day, that is 22nd November, 1996. Later, when the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 noticed that the petitioners were unable to walk because of the injuries sustained by them, they took back their summonses and asked them not to appear on 22nd November, 1996. After midnight of 21/22nd November, 1996, when the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were released, they proceeded to the nearby telephone P.C.O. in R.K. Puram where they met Sri Ved Ram Sagar and Rafaqat Ali. From there, the petitioner No. 1 alleged to have talked to his wife at Jhansi on phone who told him that she had a talk with respondent No. 2 shortly before.
10. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 tried to get themselves medically examined and treated at some hospital in Delhi, but having failed to get admission in any of the hospitals at Delhi, they had to leave for Jhansi and Kanpur. Petitioner No. 1 got himself admitted in the Government Civil Hospital, Jhansi, on 22nd November, 1996, and he filed a complaint of the offences committed by the respondents. Similarly, the petitioner No. 2 filed another complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. The respondents are said to have been summoned by the concerned Magistrates at Jhansi and Kanpur. Then, there are averments about the appearance of petitioner No. 1 before the Magistrate at New Delhi where he was served a summons by respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and taken to their office for interrogation keeping his lawyer Sri S.L. Paul, waiting outside.
11. It is claimed that on 18th December, 1996, Sri Chandra Bhan, respondent No. 2, also came to the room where the petitioner No. 1 was being interrogated and the respondent Nos. 2,3, and 4 threatened him of arrest and detention for a long time and torture, and reminding him of the beating and torture, of 21st November, 1996, forced him to give statement according to their dictates. After his release on 18th December, 1996, the petitioner No. 1 is again alleged to have got himself medically examined and made another complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi. It is also claimed that the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 hurled non-printable abuses towards the petitioner and Ved Ram Sagar and Rafaqat Ali and pressurised the petitioner No. 1 to withdraw his complaint filed at Jhansi. It is claimed that after his interrogation on 17th December, 1996, the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 informed the counsel for the petitioner No. 1 Sri S.L. Paul that he will no more be required for further investigation. Yet they issued another summons for his appearance on 26th December, 1996. The petitioner No. 2 was also served a summons dated 16th December, 1996, for his appearance on 27th December, 1996. None of them claims to have complied with the summons.
12. The petitioner No. 3 is also alleged to have received a summons for appearance on 13th November, 1996. He too did not appear and another summons was issued on 27th December, 1996. He again did not appear and sent a telegram dated 16th November, 1996, that he is apprehending torture and beating at their hands. With these allegations, these petitioners too seek reliefs similar to those asked for by Rakesh Bagla.
13. The respondents have put in appearance through Sri A.K. Gaur, Standing Counsel, and Sri S.C. Agarwal. Initially, a counter affidavit sworn by one Sri K.R. Bhargava, Deputy Director (Intelligence), Directorate General of Anti-Evasion, Central Excise, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, was filed on behalf of the respondents. It was stated that on the basis of the searches, evasion of excise duty to the tune of about rupees ten crores was suspected and investigation in that regard has been initiated and is in progress. It is claimed that the allegations of threats and terrorising physical assault made against the officers of the Central Excise conducting the investigation and supervising the same have been made to thwart investigation and to terrorise the fearless and bright officers of the Directorate to pressurise them not to effectively investigate into the matter. It was alleged that this is being done with the active connivance of the senior officers of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
14. The father of Rakesh Bagla is said to be a senior retired officer of the Indian Administrative Service, who is currently Chairman of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission of Uttar Pradesh. The brother-in-law of Rakesh Bagla is said to be the District Magistrate of Kanpur and another brother-in-law of Rakesh Bagla is said to be the Deputy Inspector General of Police at Lucknow. It is claimed that after receiving the information that the two companies, named above, were engaged in evasion of Central Excise duty by resorting to clandestine manufacture and removal of their goods, the officers of the said Directorate conducted a raid on 21st August, 1996, and seized incriminating documents. As a follow-up action, a search was conducted at the residence of Nasir Khan aforesaid, who is a supplier of scrap and a diary was seized which indicated removal of iron bars from the factory of M/s. Alfa Springs Limited without payment of duty. On the date of search itself, the statement of Shaheed Ali and Basiq Ansari aforesaid were recorded and they are alleged to have admitted evasion of Central Excise duty and the facts mentioned in the incriminating documents which were in their own hands. It is claimed that there was no question of applying third degree methods against such persons. It is claimed that searches in this connection have been made at other places also leading to recovery of incriminating documents. The allegations of torture, misbehaviour, maltreatment and beatings etc. have been denied. It is claimed that the complaints made against the officers of the Directorate respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4 are false and the proceedings before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur, have been stayed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 7 of 1997.
15. Regarding the justification for conducting the investigation at New Delhi, it is claimed that the officers posted at the Headquarter of the Directorate at New Delhi have all India jurisdiction while the officers posted at Kanpur have only local jurisdiction and the Intelligence was collected at Delhi and M.S. Ingots is an item which is extremely prone to evasion of excise duty and wide ranging investigation has, therefore, to be conducted as the case has ramifications outside the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is also claimed that the local offices do not have manpower to investigate such a serious offence of a large scale. It is also claimed that almost every major case, irrespective of the State to which it pertains is investigated at Delhi. It is claimed that any interference by this Court will prejudice the investigation. It is claimed that the petitioners have all sorts of assistance of lawyers and officers at Delhi and another brother-in-law of Rakesh Bagla is also a Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax posted at Delhi. It is claimed that the petitioner (Rakesh Bagla) has been avoiding inquiries and has been evasive in his replies. He has not cooperated with the investigating agencies on one pretext or the other and that he appeared only once on 6th and 7th November, 1996, and that too, after a prosecution was launched against him under Section 14 of the Act. The allegations of misbehaviour with Nasir Khan and Shaheed AH were denied.
16. At the hearing, it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the respondents that the counter affidavit sworn by K.R. Bhargava was not in order when allegations of misbehaviour were made against the respondents. Thereafter, the affidavits personally sworn by Chandra Bhan, respondent No. 2, J.L. Kapoor, respondent No. 3, and R.K. Goel, respondent No. 4, were filed in both the petitions, each of them denying the allegations of misbehaviour, torture, bias etc. etc. Rejoinder affidavits have also been filed in writ petition No. 861 of 1996 repeating the allegations, mentioned above.
17. In writ petition No. 1 of 1997, no rejoinder affidavits have been filed to the counter affidavits of the aforesaid three persons and a prayer for further time for that purpose was rejected by the Court.
18. At the hearing, Sri K.N. Tripathi, Senior Advocate for the petitioners in both the petitions, laid stress on the allegations of torture made on Nasir Khan and Shaheed AH and contended that they as well as the petitioner Rakesh Bagla have a reasonable cause for apprehencing that when they appear before the respondents, they will be subjected to physical misbehaviour. He also contended that the investigation should not be allowed to proceed at New Delhi and they should be ordered to be conducted at Kanpur or at any other neighbouring place.
19. On the other hand, Sri S.C. Agarwal, Advocate, appearing for the respondents contended that the father and various relations of Rakesh Bagla are influential persons one of whom is the District Magistrate at Kanpur and they will, therefore, successfully thwart the investigation, if any, conducted at Kanpur and that the petitioners have been avoiding the compliance of summons, as is indicated by the averments made in the writ petitions and, therefore, if the investigating team is forced to come to Kanpur for investigation, they will just not attend and cooperate and will tired out the officers of the Directorate causing them avoidable harassment and embrassment and also cause loss to the State Exchequer by loss of the services of the respondents because of their absence from the Headquarters and financial loss in the form of travelling and other expenses.
20. It was also contended that the business of the petitioners is spread throughout India and the investigation is not restricted to Kanpur and Orai and, therefore, Delhi is the most suitable place for investigation where the petitioners and other persons summoned under Section 14 of the Act should attend. He therefore, contended that there was no justification for demoralising the investigators in an excise duty scam by interference by this Court, either by changing the investigating team or the place of investigation. He placed reliance on the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jayant Vitamin Ltd. v. Chaitanya Kumar 1992 S.C.C. (Criminal) 793 and Poolpandi v. Superintendent of Central Excise AIR 1992 S.C. 1795.
21. After arguing the matter fully and projecting their respective grievances, the learned counsel for the parties stated that since in the matter of allegations regarding physical torture, criminal complaints are pending before the concerned Magistrates at Jhansi and Kanpur and petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are also pending in this Court for quashing the proceedings launched by Nasir Khan and Shaheed All, this Court should refrain from making any observation about the veracity or otherwise of the allegations and we agreed to the suggestion.
22. Investigation in matters relating to tax avoidance is governed by statutory provisions. In this case, the investigation is being undertaking for suspect evasion of excise duty. The authority to investigate is conferred by the Central Excises and Salt Act and Section 14 confers the power to summon witnesses for oral evidence or production of documents; so much so that Sub-section (3) of Section 14 confers on the enquiry proceedings the status of “judicial proceedings” within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code.
23. It is not in dispute that the respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4 have statutory authority under the Act to conduct and supervise the investigation in the matter in hand and they also have the authority to choose the place where they would call a witness for examination or production of record. It is admitted that it is not obligatory on them to come down to Kanpur or Orai for investigation.
24. In Poolpandi v. Superintendent, Central Excise (supra), it was contended that a person to be interrogated under the Customs Act should not be called away from his home and his interrogation should be made in the presence of his lawyer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under :
“We do not find any force in the arguments of Mr. Salve and Mr. Lalit that if a person is called away from his own house and questioned in the atmosphere of the Customs office without the assistance of his lawyer or his friends his constitutional right under Article 21 is voilated…. The purpose of the enquiry under the Customs Act and the other similar statues will be completely frustrated if the whims of the persons in possession of useful information for the departments are allowed to prevail. For achieving the object of such an enquiry if the appropriate authorities be of the view that such persons should be dissociated from the atmosphere and the company of persons who provide encouragement to them in adopting a non-cooperative attitude to the machines of law, there cannot be any legitimate objection in depriving them of such company. The relevant provisions of the Constitution in this regard have to be construed in the spirit they were made and the benefits thereunder should not be “expanded” to favour exploiters engaged in tax evasion at the cost of public exchequer.”
25. In Jayant Vitamins Ltd. v. Chaitanyakumar and Anr. (supra), it was observed that the investigation into an offence is a statutory function of the police and the superintendence thereof is vested in the State Government and the Court is not justified without any compelling and justifiable reason to interfere with the investigation.
26. In Santosh Dev. Archana Guha – (1994) 2 S.C.C. 420, it was observed that frequent interference by superior courts at the interlocutory stages tends to defeat the ends of Justice instead of serving those ends. It should not be that a man with enough means is able to keep the law at bay. That would mean the failure of the very system.
27. In U.P. Sales Tax Service Association v. Taxation Bar Association -(1995) 5 S.C.C. 716, the Advocates practising before the Sales Tax authorities at Agra started an agitation against a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) alleging him to be corrupt and boycotted him. The officer continued to dispose of the appeals on merits in the absence of the lawyers. The advocates came to this Court in a writ petition and this Court issued an interim writ of prohibition restraining the said officer from discharging his appellate functions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court did not approve of this and quashed the High Court’s order observing that this could be done only when the inferior Court or Tribunal :-
(a) Proceeds to act without or in excess of jurisdiction,
(b) Proceeds to act in violation of the rules of natural justice,
(c) Proceeds to act under law which is itself ultra vires or unconstitutional, or
(d) Proceeds to act in contravention of fundamental rights.
28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the High Court cannot at the instance of the Advocates and the Bar, issue a writ or order of prohibition, prohibiting a quasi judicial authority from discharging its statutory functions or transferring those functions to another jurisdiction. The Apex Court observed that exercise of such power generates its rippling effect on the subordinate judiciary and statutory functionaries and on the slightest pretext by the aggrieved parties or displeased members of the bar, by their concerted action, they would brow-beat the judicial officers and authorities who would always be deterred from discharging their duties according to law without fear or favour.
29. In the light of the above, let us examine whether there is any just and compelling reason for us to grant any of the prayers made by the petitioners.
30. As regard the change of venue of investigation, we find that no reason whatsoever is made out. The respondents are legally entitled to investigate the matter at Delhi which is a central and well connected place.
31. The respondents have their headquarters at New Delhi where they have their entire records which are necessary for reference during investigation. The security of such records is a major concern. Then, at Delhi, they can simultaneously carry on other investigations or attend to other duties. If the investigation is ordered to be undertaken at some other place, it may cause undeserved harassment to the respondents and public loss if the petitioners seek repeated adjournments as they have, according to their own showing, been doing. The petitioner Rakesh Bagla has appeared before them only once for two days. In an investigation, a person who has already been interrogated, may be required to be examined again and there is nothing exceptional in summoning him again. Unless it is shown that the power is being grossly misused, no interference would be justified.
32. It was contended that the interrogation of the petitioners be conducted in the presence of a lawyer and doctor of their choice. This, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, cannot be permitted and would frustrate the very purpose. The respondents are not prohibiting the accompaniment of lawyers etc. to the office. In fact, Nasir Khan had taken with him a lawyer S.L. Paul once and one retired Commissioner of Income Tax on an earlier occasion. But they were rightly not permitted in the room where the person concerned is interrogated.
33. As regards the change of the investigation team or the removal of Chander Bhan, respondent No. 2, therefrom, the same is being claimed on the allegations of alleged physical torture of Nasir Khan and Shaheed Ali, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in writ petition No. 1 of 1997. On this point, there are affidavits, counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits. The learned counsel for the petitioners conceded that we should not enter into objective examination thereof and of the attendant circumstances. So, we cannot even prima facie hold whether there is any substance in the allegations made against the respondents to bring about any compelling and justifiable reason for interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction tinder Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It may be mentioned that earlier Rakesh Bagla had appeared before the investigating officer on two days and he does not complain of any maltreatment then.
34. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any cause for interference in the investigation being conducted by the respondents. The writ petitions are dismissed with costs.