THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 676 · Decided: 10-07-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Directions issued
cites 13 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 7 S.C.R. 676 : 2024 INSC 502
The State of West Bengal  
v. 
Union of India
(Original Suit No. 4 of 2021)
10 July 2024 
[B.R. Gavai* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Instant suit has been filed by the State of West Bengal against 
Union of India seeking declaration that registration of cases by the 
defendant-UOI after withdrawal of Notification u/s. 6 of the DSPE 
Act by the plaintiff-State is unconstitutional and non-est; seeking 
restraining and forbearing the UOI from registering any case and/or 
investigating a case in connection with offences committed within 
the territory of State of West Bengal after withdrawal of the consent 
u/s. 6 of the DSPE Act by the State, as also sought quashing of 
such cases; and as regards the jurisdiction of the CBI to investigate 
cases within the State of West Bengal after the withdrawal of the 
consent u/s. 6 of the DSPE Act.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art. 131 – Delhi Special Police 
Establishment Act, 1946 – Withdrawal of the consent u/s. 6 
of the DSPE Act by the State which allowed CBI to conduct 
investigations of cases in West Bengal – Case of the  
State that after withdrawal of the consent, the CBI continued 
to register cases in the State of West Bengal – Suit filed by the 
State of West Bengal against Union of India seeking declaration 
that registration of cases by the UOI after withdrawal of the 
consent u/s. 6 of the DSPE Act by the State is unconstitutional 
and non-est; sought restraining and forbearing the UOI from 
registering any case and/or investigating a case in connection 
with offences committed within the territory of State of West 
Bengal after withdrawal of the consent u/s. 6 of the DSPE 
Act by the State, as also sought quashing of such cases;  
and as regards the jurisdiction of the CBI to investigate 
cases within the State of West Bengal after the withdrawal of 
the consent u/s. 6 of the DSPE Act – Preliminary objections 
raised by the Union of India with regard to the maintainability 
of the suit:
* Author
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
677
The State of West Bengal v. Union of India
Held: Preliminary objections raised by the Union of India 
with regard to the maintainability of the suit is rejected – Very 
establishment, exercise of powers, extension of jurisdiction, the 
superintendence of the DSPE, all vest with the Government 
of India – CBI is an organ or a body which is established by 
and which is under the superintendence of the Government of 
India in view of the statutory scheme as enacted by the DSPE 
Act – Plea that UOI having no superintendence or control over 
the CBI cannot be accepted – Merely because, in any of the 
proceedings initiated u/Art. 32 or Art. 136 or even Art. 226, one 
of the parties is common, the pendency of such proceedings 
would not come in the way of a specific party mentioned in Art. 
131 to take recourse to the remedy available therein – Remedy 
under Art. 131 is a special remedy available only to the parties 
mentioned therein and for the purposes mentioned therein – Thus, 
the plea that, in view of the term “subject to the provisions of this 
Constitution” used in Art. 131, since various matters are already 
pending with regard to the subject matter of the present suit, be 
it the proceedings either u/Art. 136, Art. 32 or Art. 226, the suit 
would not be maintainable, cannot be accepted – Also the plea 
that suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression 
of material facts as regards many of the FIRs mentioned in the 
plaint are registered under the directions of the High Court u/Art. 
226 is rejected – As regards, plea with regard to non-disclosure 
of cause of action against the UOI, it is only the averments in the 
plaint which can be gone into for considering as to whether the 
cause of action against the UOI arises or not and on the basis 
thereof, it cannot be said that the State has not made out any 
cause of action against the UOI. [Paras 65-67, 77-83]
Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Ord. XXVI r. 6 – Plaints, when 
to be rejected:
Held: Plaint is liable to be rejected where it does not disclose a 
cause of action or where the suit appears from the statement in 
the plaint to be barred by any law – Provisions in Ord. XXVI r. 6 
(a) and (b) are analogous to the provisions in clauses (a) and (d) 
of Ord. VII r. 11 CPC – For considering objections u/Ord. VII r. 11 
(a) and (d), only the averments made in the plaint needs to be 
looked into – If the averments made in the plaint ar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.