/2022 INSC 0936/
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 16325­16326 OF 2022
DR. MANIK BHATTACHARYA                …..PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
RAMESH MALIK AND OTHERS        …..RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S).17649­17650/2022
SLP (CIVIL) NO.17412/2022
SLP (CIVIL) NO. 17137/2022
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 17044­17045/2022
SLP (CIVIL) NO.17208­17209/2022
SLP (CIVIL) NO.17756/2022
O R D E R
1. The   present   set   of   petitions   except   SLP(C)Nos.17649­
17650/2022 arises out of a judgment of a Division Bench of
the High Court at Calcutta delivered on 2 nd
  September 2022,
1  |  P a g e

sustaining,   in   substance   a   set   of   orders   passed   by   a   Single
Judge   directing   investigation   by   the   CBI   into   the   allegations
of   irregularities   in   the   recruitment   process   of   Assistant
Primary   Teachers.   Such   recruitment   took   place   through   the
Teachers   Eligibility   Test   (TET)   examination   2014   which   was
held   in   the   year   2015.   A   slew   of   other   directions   has   also
been issued by the Single Judge and we shall refer to them to
the   extent   necessary   later   in   this   order.   Altogether   23   lakh
candidates participated in the selection process for filling up
approximately   43,000   vacancies   and   about   40,000
candidates   were   appointed.   SLP(C)Nos.17649­17650/2022
has been filed by the petitioner in SLP(C)Nos.16325­16326 of
2022 directly   assailing the order of the Single Judge passed
on 27 th
  September, 2022 (in WPA No.2005 of 2022 and WPA
No.15010   of   2022)   by   which   the   Central   Bureau   of
Investigation   (CBI)   was   directed   to   register   a   case   and   take
certain steps in relation to OMR sheets of the candidates who
took part in the said examination.
2. The   Division   Bench   considered   in   the   impugned
judgment/   orders   passed   in   two   writ   petitions   brought   by
unsuccessful candidates. In the first writ petition (registered
2  |  P a g e

as WP No. 7907 of 2019) applicants were Ramesh Malik and
eight other aspirants for the said posts and this writ petition
was filed in the year 2019. The petitioners in this proceeding
sought cancellation of appointment of the private respondent
impleaded   therein,   inter­alia,   on   the   ground   that
appointments were made through corrupt process and not on
the   basis   of   merit   and   performance   of   the   successful
candidates.   In   the   other   writ   petition   filed   by   one   Soumen
Nandy,   registered   as   WPA   No.   9979   of   2022,   complaint   was
non­disclosure  of  certain  informations  with  regard  to  the  68
candidates   pertaining   to   their   answer   scripts.  These   were   in
OMR   sheets.   From   the   prayers   of   the   petitioner   in   the   said
writ application, a copy of which has been annexed to SLP (C)
No.   17137   of   2022,   we   do   not   find   particulars   of   the
information   he   has   asked   for.   In   both   the   writ   petitions,
however,  Court  monitored  CBI   investigation   had   been   asked
for. 
3. There   are   also   certain   other   writ   petitions   filed
questioning   legality   of   the   recruitment   process,   but   orders
passed   in   these   proceedings   do   not   appear   to   have   been
appealed   against   before   the   Division   Bench   in   the   judgment
3  |  P a g e

which   has   been   assailed   before   us.   In   the   judgment
impugned   in   this   batch   of   proceedings,   the   Division   Bench
dealt with a set of orders passed on 13 th
 June, 15 th
 June, 17 th
June,   20 th
  June   and   21 st
  June,   2022.   The   next   series   of
orders,   as   we   find   from   the   materials   available   before   us,
were passed on 19 th
  July, 20 th
  July, 22 nd
  July, 25 th
  July, 29 th
July   and   1 st
  September   2022.   These   orders   were   not   under
appeal before the Division Bench but they are linked with the
first set of orders.  
4. The orders and directions passed by the Single Judge 
in the month of June can be categorized under three heads:­
(i)     Investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation
Direction   has   been   issued   by   the   Single   Judge   on
CBI   to   start   investigation   by   registering   a   case
against   the   Board   and   start   interrogating   the
President   of   the   Board   of   primary   education,
Dr.Manik   Bhattacharya   as   also   the   Secretary   of   the
said   Board.   Said   Manik   Bhattacharya   is   the
petitioner   of   SLP(C)   Nos.   16325­16326   of   2022   and
SLP(C)Nos.17649­17650   of   2022.   A   Special
4  |  P a g e

Investigation Team (SIT) has also been directed to be
constituted   by   the   CBI   for   investigation.   The   SIT
constitutes of senior officers from the CBI.
(ii)  Invalidation of appointment of 269 candidates
The   Single   Judge   has   also,   by   the   order   passed   on
13 th
  June   2022,   invalidated   appointment   given   to
269 candidates (these candidates were not parties in
either   of   the   two   writ   petitions).   58   of   these
candidates   have   approached   us   with   SLP   (C)   No.
17412 of  2022. The  background  in  which  this order
was   passed   is   that   after   publication   of   the   regular
panel   of   successful   candidates,   a   second   or
additional   panel   was   also   published.   In   this   panel,
the 269 candidates were found to be successful. The
stand   of   the   Board   on   this   count   is   that   there   was
agitation   and   several   representations   by   several
unsuccessful   candidates   over   the   selection   process.
An   expert   committee   was   formed   which   found   the
model answer in respect of one question actually had
two   correct   answers.   Thus,   that   question   had   two
5  |  P a g e

correct   answers   but   the   model   answer   had   ignored
the   other   one.   One   mark   was   recommended   to   be
added   to   all   the   candidates   who   had   opted   for   the
other   correct   answer.   The   Single   Judge   found   this
exercise was done without any public announcement
and   there   was   arbitrary   selection   of   candidates   for
undue favour. 
(iii)    Removal of the Board President
The President of the Board, Dr. Manik Bhattacharya
was   added   as   party   respondent   in   WPA   No.7907   of
2019.   He,   alongwith   Dr.   Ratna   Chakraborty   Bagchi
(who   was   also   added   as   a   party   respondent)   was
directed to cooperate with the CBI. The Single Judge
in   the   order   passed   on   20 th
  June   2022   opined   that
the   President   of   the   Board   was   responsible   for
misleading   the   Court   and   made   dishonest   and
unscrupulous   attempt   in   producing   documents.   In
the   same   order,   the   Court   removed   Dr.   Manik
Bhattacharya from  the post of President of the West
Bengal   Board   of   Primary   Education   forthwith   and
6  |  P a g e

directed   the   State   Government   to   appoint   any   other
fit person as President of the Board. We are apprised
in   course   of   hearing   that   the   State   Government   has
already   removed   Dr.   Manik   Bhattacharya   from   the
post   of   President   of   the   Board   and   engaged   another
person as President thereof. Dr. Manik Bhattacharya
was   also   directed   to   file   affidavits   of   assets   of
moveable and immovable assets of his own as also in
respect   of   his   wife,   son   and   daughter   in   law   by   two
weeks.   It   has   transpired   in   course   of   hearing   that
such   exercise   has   also   been   undertaken.   In   the
judgment   under   appeal   certain   adverse   comments
were also made against Dr. Manik Bhattacharya.
5. The   Division   Bench   in   the   operative   part   of   the
judgment held:­
“A.   The   forensic   investigation   directed   to   be   handled
by the CBI deserves no interference.
B. The Hon’ble Single Bench shall be also entitled to
monitor   investigation   into   any   money   trail,   as
considered necessary.
C. The   entire   investigation   shall   be   Court   Monitored
and the Hon’ble Single Bench shall be entitled to call
for periodic reports from the investigation agencies.
7  |  P a g e

D. The   disparaging   remarks   reflected   in   the   Orders
impugned of Hon’ble Single Bench shall be treated to
be   Obiter   at   this   stage.   However,   at   the   same   time,
this   Court   does   not   interfere   with   the   Order   of   the
Hon’ble   Singe   Bench   removing   MB   from   his   official
position, in view of the  visible  proximity of MB to  the
evidence so far before  the Court and  also  directed  to
be marshalled in the forensic investigation.
E. The   269   terminated   candidates   cannot   severally
or jointly claim at this stage a prior right to be heard
considering the prima facie materials which point to a
fraudulent   exercise   connected   to   their   appointments
and, without also completely eliminating their several
or joint complicit roles, if any, in abetting the fraud.”
(quoted verbatim from the paperbook)
6. Special   leave   petitions   have   been   filed   by,   apart   from
Dr.   Manik   Bhattacharya,   the   State   of   West   Bengal   SLP
(C)Nos.17208­17209   of  2022,   West  Bengal  Board  of   Primary
Education   SLP   (C)   No.17044­17045,   SLP   (C)   No.17137   of
2022 and SLP (C) No.17756 of 2022. The Main case, so far as
Dr.   Manik   Bhattacharya   is   concerned,   is   that   his   removal
could   not   be   directed   by   the   Board   as   the   statutory
provisions   under   Section   9   of   the   Primary   Education   Act,
1973   vests   such   power   with   the   State   Government   only.   It
has   been   submitted   on   his   behalf   that   he   was   never   given
adequate opportunity of hearing and in the writ petitions also
there was no specific allegation against him in any event. It is
argued that he ought to have been given opportunity of filing
8  |  P a g e

affidavit before such drastic action was ordered against him.
It   has   also   been   asserted   that   drastic   orders   were   being
passed directing the course of investigation and the nature of
the   orders   passed   projected   him   as   guilty   before  he   had   the
opportunity to give his side of the case.
7. All   the   petitioners   have   questioned   legality   of   the
orders directing investigation to the CBI by the Single Judge.
In this  regard  reliance  has  been  placed  on  the  case  of   State
of   West   Bengal   and   Others   vs.   Sampat   Lal   and   Others
[(1985) 1 SCC 317]:­
“15.   As already pointed out, power vests in the police
authorities   of   the   State   Government   for   conducting
investigation   into   allegations   relating   to   an   offence.
However,   the   stand   taken   by   the   respondents   was
that   the   State   Government   and   the   police   authorities
had not acted properly and the investigation was not
being conducted as required by law. As appears from
the order of June 7, 1983, Borooah, J., directed notice
to   issue   to   the   State   of   West   Bengal   as   also   to   the
other authorities concerned to show cause against the
issue of a writ. No hearing was, however, afforded to
the State Government or its officers when direction to
appoint the  Special Officer in whom power of  inquiry
was to be vested, was made. There could be no scope
for   appointing   a   Special   Officer   unless   the   statutory
channel   of   investigation   was   found   not   to   have
functioned properly. There was no basis at that stage
to assume that the contents of the letters as also the
facts stated in the columns of the newspaper had not
been contradicted. It was the State Government or its
officers   who   alone   could   have   authoritatively
indicated   the   facts   showing   whether   the   allegations
contained   in   the   letters   or   the   newspaper   reports
9  |  P a g e

were   true   and   if   so,   to   what   extent,   or   how   the
investigation was being carried on and what stage it
had   reached   so   as   to   enable   the   Court   to   come   to   a
prima facie conclusion that the State Government and
the   police   authorities   were   not   discharging   properly
their statutory obligation to carry out an investigation.
But   when   no   notice   was   given   to   the   State
Government and no opportunity was offered to them,
it   is   difficult   to   see   how   an   ex   parte   order   could   be
made on such an assumption. When we say this, we
do   not   wish   to   be   understood   to   say   that   in   no   case
an   ex   parte   order   can   be   made   by   the   Court.   If   the
facts   stated   in   the   letter   or   the   writ   petition   are
credible   and   there   is   such   urgency   that   the   ends   of
justice  might  be   defeated  by  not  making  an  ex   parte
order or giving of notice without  ex parte order might
lead   to   aggravation   of   oppression   or   exploitation   or
removal   or   elimination   of   evidence,   the   Court   would
certainly be justified in making an ex parte order. But
here there were no such circumstances at all and the
Court   could   have   very   well   issued   notice   to   the
respondents  and  tried  to  find  out  whether  there  was
any   necessity   for   directing   the   appointment   of   DIG,
CBI to act as a Special Officer and requiring the police
authorities of the State to extend  all possible help as
may   be   required   by   him.   We   are   of   the   view   that
Borooah,   J.,   should   have   issued   notice   to   the   State
Government,   afforded   a   reasonable   opportunity   to   it
and   its   officers   who   were   already   in   seisin   of   the
investigation to make a report in regard  to the action
taken   by   them   and   after   making   an   overall   judicial
assessment of the situation, the need for appointing a
Special Officer should have been considered.
16.   The   appointment   of   a   Special   Officer   with   a
direction to  inquire  into  the  commission of  an  offence
can   only   be   on   the   basis   that   there   has   not   been   a
proper   investigation.   There   is   a   well­defined
hierarchical  administrative   set­up  of   the   police  in  the
State   of   West   Bengal   as   in   all   other   States   and   to
have   created   a   new   channel   of   inquiry   or
investigation   is   likely   to   create   an   impression   that
everything   is  not  well   with  the  statutory  agency  and
it   is   likely   to   cast   a   stigma   on   the   regular   police
hierarchy.   We   are   inclined   to   agree   with   Mr
Chatterjee   for   the   appellant   that   in   the   facts   and
circumstances   of   the   case   and   keeping   the   nature   of
10  |  P a g e

the   order   made   in   view,   the   direction   to   appoint   a
Special Officer with powers to inquire should not have
been   made   until   the   appellants   had   been   given   a
hearing and the Court had the papers of investigation
laid   before   it   for   being   prima   facie   satisfied   that   the
investigation had either not been proper or adequate.”
On   the   same   point   the   cases   of   State   of   West   Bengal
and   Others   vs.   Committee   for   Protection   of   Democratic
Rights, West Bengal and Others  [(2010) 3 SCC 571],  Sakiri
Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others   [(2008) 2 SCC
409]   and   Kunga   Nima   Lepcha   and   Others   vs.   State   of
Sikkim and Others   [(2010) 4 SCC 513] were also referred to
by the learned counsel for the parties. 
8. As   regards   the   269   candidates,   whose   appointments
were   directed   to   be   dismissed   by   the   Single   Judge,   the
reasoning   of   the   Division   Bench   can   be   found   in   sub­
paragraph E of the operative part of the order which we have
quoted  above.  It  has  been   pointed  out  by   the  learned senior
counsel   representing   the   petitioners   that   they   were   serving
for   a   period   beyond   four   years   and   that   they   had   acquired
permanent   status   in   the   said   posts.   In   such   circumstances,
it   is   their   submission   that   in   a   case   they   were   not   even
11  |  P a g e

impleaded   as   parties,   their   abrupt   termination   from   service
would be unsustainable in law.
9. Petitioners have asked us to set aside investigation by
the   CBI   and   also   revoke   all   termination   orders   as   according
to   them,   these   orders   were   passed   without   adhering   to   the
basic requirement of procedural fairness.
10. Mr.   S.   V.   Raju,   learned   Additional   Solicitor   General
has appeared on behalf of the CBI and his submission is that
his   clients   are   in   the   process   of   uncovering   a   recruitment
scam of extraordinary dimension and the investigation at this
stage   prima­facie   reveals   exchange   of   monetary
considerations   for   giving   appointments.   He   has   argued   that
investigation   ought   to   be   allowed   to   continue   under   these
circumstances.   The   Learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   for
the   writ   petitioners/respondents   in   effect   echoes   the
submission   of   the   CBI   to   sustain   their   main   plea   that   the
investigation   ought   to   go   on.     Further   argument   of   the
respondents/writ   petitioners   is   that   having   regard   to   the
nature   of   the   allegations   and   the   materials   which   have
surfaced during hearing of the case investigation ought not to
12  |  P a g e

be   scuttled   at   this   stage.   It   has   been   emphasised   that   the
writ   petitioners   represent   all   the   genuine   candidates   and   all
they want is recruitment in a fair and transparent manner.
11. In  our  opinion,  under  normal circumstances,  it would
not be appropriate to straightaway direct CBI investigation in
a   recruitment   related   controversy   unless,   of   course   the
allegations   are   so   outrageous   and   the   perpetrators   of   the
alleged   offences   are   so   powerful   that   investigation   by   the
State   police   would   be   ineffectual.     The   reasons   given   by   the
learned Single Judge in directing investigation by the CBI at
such   an   early   stage   of   the   proceeding   may   fall   short   of   the
standards laid down in  the  case of   Sampat   Lal   (supra). But
considering   the   submission   of   learned   counsel   for   the   CBI
and   the   fact   that   investigation   by   the   said   agency   has
substantially   progressed,   we   do   not   want   to   stall   such
investigation  at  this stage and  wait  to  see  if  the  State  Police
can   carry   on   the   same   investigation   impartially.   We
accordingly   decline   the   plea   of   the   petitioners   to   stay   that
part   of   the   order   impugned,   by   which   continuance   of   the
investigation   by   the   CBI   has   been   directed.   Before   we   issue
13  |  P a g e

further   order   in   this   matter,   we   direct   the   CBI   to   file   a
comprehensive   report   as   regards   the   scope   and   nature   of
illegalities   they   have   found   in   the   subject­recruitment
process. 
12. Now,   we   shall   turn  to   that   part   of   the  order   by   which
cancellation   of   appointment   of   269   candidates   have   been
effected.   Such   cancellation   has   not   been   interfered   with   by
the   Division   Bench.   The   Division   Bench   has   referred   to
prima­facie   materials   which   point   to   a   fraudulent   exercise
connected   with   their   appointments.   On   behalf   of   the
respondents,   however,   no   material   has   been   shown   to   us
through   which   these   candidates’   direct   complicity   in   the
process of appointment has been shown. What weighed with
the   learned   Single   Judge   in   directing   their   termination   in   a
case   where   they   were   not   even   the   parties   appears   to   be
materials   that   was   revealed   in   response   to   orders   of   the
Court. Such orders reflect some kind of investigative role that
was   being   undertaken   by   the   Court   itself   in   obtaining
documents from the recruiting bodies. It was also not a case
the respective appointments were of very recent origin. 
14  |  P a g e

13. The   duty   of   the   judiciary   to   follow   the   principles   of
natural   justice   has   been   highlighted   in   the   case   of   Divine
Retreat   Centre   vs.   State   of   Kerala   and   Others   [(2008)   3
SCC 542]. In this case it has been held:
“51.   The   order   directing   the   investigation   on   the
basis   of   such   vague   and   indefinite   allegations
undoubtedly   is   in   the   teeth   of   principles   of   natural
justice.   It   was,   however,   submitted   that   the   accused
gets   a   right   of   hearing   only   after   submission   of   the
charge­sheet,   before   a   charge   is   framed   or   the
accused   is   discharged   vide   Sections   227   and   228
and   239   and   240   CrPC.   The   appellant   is   not   an
accused   and,   therefore,   it   was   not   entitled   for   any
notice   from   the   High   Court   before   passing   of   the
impugned  order. We  are  concerned with the  question
as   to   whether   the   High   Court   could   have   passed   a
judicial   order   directing   investigation   against   the
appellant   and   its   activities   without   providing   an
opportunity of being heard to it. The case on hand  is
a case where the criminal law is directed to be set in
motion   on   the   basis   of   the   allegations   made   in
anonymous   petition   filed   in   the   High   Court.   No
judicial   order   can   ever   be   passed   by   any   court
without   providing   a   reasonable   opportunity   of
being   heard   to   the   person   likely   to   be   affected
by such order and particularly when such order
results   in   drastic   consequences   of   affecting
one's   own   reputation .   In   our   view,   the   impugned
order   of   the   High   Court   directing   enquiry   and
investigation   into   allegations   in   respect   of   which   not
even   any   complaint/information   has   been   lodged
with   the   police   is   violative   of   principles   of   natural
justice.
52.   It   is   unnecessary   to   go   into   the   question   as   to
whether   the   Divine   Retreat   Centre   is   not   a   “person”
contemplated   by   Article   21   of   the   Constitution   and
express   any   opinion   as   to   whether   any   right
guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution has been
infringed.   Suffice   it   to   note   that,   the   Director   of   the
15  |  P a g e

appellant   institution   has   been   impleaded   as   a   party
respondent   in   the   criminal   petition   and   the   whole   of
the allegations in the anonymous petition are levelled
against   the   appellant   and   in   such   a   situation   it   was
imperative  for the  High Court  to  put  the  appellant  on
notice before passing the impugned order.”
(emphasis supplied by us)
14. We are of the opinion that the part of the order of the
Single   Judge   by   which   appointment   of   269   candidates   was
terminated   ought   to   be   stayed   and   they   also   should   be
impleaded   as   party   respondents   in   WPA   No.7907   of   2019.
Upon giving them opportunity of filing affidavits and hearing
them,   the   Single   Judge   shall   take   appropriate   decision,
depending   on   the   defence   that   may   be   taken   by   those
candidates in the writ petition.  In the event the Single Judge
wants   the   investigation   as   regards   their   appointment   to   be
conducted through the SIT already formed, he may direct so. 
15. As regards the case of President of the Board, our view
is that the order of his removal by the High Court was flawed,
not   fulfilling   the   requirement   of   procedural   fairness   that   is
necessary   to   direct   removal   of   a   person   from   a   public   post.
We are not observing here that the High Court cannot at all
direct   removal   of   any   person   from   a   public   post.   But
16  |  P a g e

ordinarily,   such   a   course   shall   be   taken   in   a   quo   warranto
proceeding.   Even   otherwise,   if   the   Court   finds   that   an
incumbent   has   appropriated   a   public   post   through   deceit,
the Court may hold him to be unfit for the post.   But in this
case   the   Court   found   him   to   be   responsible   for
misinformation   and   for   relying   on   questionable   documents
before   the   Court.   In   a   case   like   this   he   should   have   been
given appropriate opportunity to defend his position. At best,
the Court could have directed him, pending his explanation,
not to discharge his duties in the said post. The order of the
Single   Judge   directing   his   removal   accordingly   shall   stand
stayed   alongwith   the   order   of   the   Division   Bench   which   has
confirmed   the   removal   order.   But   at   this   stage,   we   are   not
directing   his   reinstatement   in   the   same   post.   We   have   been
apprised   that   the   State   Government   itself   has   already
engaged   someone   as   the   President   of   the   Board.     We
accordingly   hold   that   the   present   incumbent   to   the   post   of
President,   West   Bengal   Board   of   Primary   Education   shall
continue   to   remain   in   the   said   post   till   final   outcome   of   the
writ petition  before the  Single Judge in  which  the  directions
of   the   said   petitioner’s   removal   was   passed.   Dr.   Manik
17  |  P a g e

Bhattacharya   shall   be   entitled   to   file   affidavits   to   the   writ
petitions   as   also   any   additional   affidavit   taken   out   in
connection   with   the   said   writ   petitions   which   may   contain
allegations against him. The Single Judge shall take decision
on this aspect as also on other points which may be urged in
the   pending   writ   petitions.   Till   then,   the   present   incumbent
to   the   post   of   President,   West   Bengal   Board   of   Primary
Education  shall   continue  to  discharge  his  duties  in  the  said
post   and   Dr.   Manik   Bhattacharya’s   position   shall   be
dependent upon the outcome of the pending writ petition. 
16. We accordingly direct:­
(a). The   CBI   under   the   SIT   shall   continue   their
investigation as directed by the Single Judge and file a
comprehensive report before this Court within a period
of four weeks as regards progress of the investigation.
(b)   (i).   The   order   passed   directing   cancellation   of   269
candidates by the Single Judge on 13 th
 June 2022 and
the  part of  the order  of  the Division  Bench  confirming
that order shall stand stayed and remain in abeyance.
18  |  P a g e

(ii).   Each   of   these   269   individuals   are   directed   to   be
added as a party  respondent in WPA No.7907 of 2019
and   they   shall   be   entitled   to   file   affidavits   to   defend
their appointment to the said posts, if so advised. The
appointing   authority   will   proceed   in   accordance   with
law   and   take   appropriate   decision   after   the   writ   court
adjudicates   on   legality   of   their   appointments.   This
direction   would   be   subject   to   any   order   that   may   be
passed   by   this   Court   at   a   subsequent   stage   of   this
proceeding.
(c)   (i).   The   order   removing   Dr.   Manik   Bhattacharya
passed   by   the   Single   Judge   and   confirmed   by   the
Division Bench shall remain stayed until further order
of   this   Court.   We,   however,   are   not   directing   his
reinstatement   for   the   reason   already   disclosed   in
earlier part of this order. Dr. Manik Bhattacharya shall
be entitled to defend his position in the writ petition by
filing   affidavits   in   respect   of   allegations   made   against
him. 
19  |  P a g e

(ii).   We   have   protected   Dr.   Manik   Bhattacharya   from
any   coercive   steps   that   may   have   been   taken   by   the
CBI   in   course   of   the   investigation.   There   was   no
allegation   from   the   CBI   in   course   of   hearing   of   these
matters   that   he   was   not   cooperating   with   the
investigation.  It was, however, mentioned before us on
12 th
  October   2022   that   he   has   been   arrested   by   the
Enforcement   Directorate.   So   far   as   CBI   is   concerned,
let   the   order   protecting   him   from   coercive   steps
continue until further order.
17. Notice be issued in SLP(C)No.17756 of 2022.
Let   counter­affidavits   be   filed   within   two   weeks.
Rejoinder thereto within one week thereafter. List the matters
after four weeks.
………………………………. J.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE)
………………………………. J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
NEW DELHI;
18 th
 October 2022
20  |  P a g e