1

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6249-6250  OF  2001

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.              Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS & ORS.                 Respondent(s)

O R D E R

C.A. Nos.6249-6250/2001:

Mr.  Tara  Chandra  Sharma,   learned  counsel  

appearing for the State of West Bengal fairly submitted  

that in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this  

Court in  State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. Committee for  

Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and Ors.,  

reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571, these appeals are liable to  

be  dismissed  as  has  been  observed  by  this  Court  in  

paragraph 69, which reads as under:

“In  the  final  analysis,  our  answer  to  the  

question referred is that a direction by the  

High  Court,  in  exercise  of  its  jurisdiction  

under Article 226 of the Constitution, to CBI  

to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to  

have been committed within the territory of a  

State without the consent of that State will  

neither impinge upon the federal structure of

2

the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of  

separation of power and shall be valid in law.  

Being the protectors of civil liberties of the  

citizens, this Court and the High Courts have  

not only the power and jurisdiction but also  

an  obligation  to  protect  the  fundamental  

rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and  

under  Article  21  of  the  Constitution  in  

particular, zealously and vigilantly.”  

In  view  of  the  aforesaid  pronouncement  of  the  

Constitution Bench, nothing survives in these appeals and  

the same are accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to  

bear their own costs.  

S.L.P.(Crl.) No.4096/2007:

Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, learned counsel appearing  

for the State of West Bengal submits that in view of the  

aforesaid order passed by this Court in C.A. Nos.6249-

6250/2001,  nothing  survives  in  this  petition.  This  

special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.  

W.P.(C) No.573/2006:

Mr.  Mukul  Rohatgi,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in  

view of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in  

State  of  West  Bengal  and  Ors.  (supra),  he  may  be  

permitted to withdraw this petition.  Leave as prayed for  

is granted.  The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

3

However,  the  petitioner  would  be  at  liberty  to  

move  a  fresh  petition,  if  so  advised,  before  the  

Karnataka High Court at Bangalore.    

W.P.(Crl.) No.24/2008:

Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned counsel appearing on  

behalf of the petitioners prays for leave of the Court to  

withdraw  this  petition  in  order  to  file  appropriate  

petition,  if  so  advised,  before  the  Uttarakhand  High  

Court at Nainital.  Leave as prayed for is granted.  This  

writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Interim order granted by this Court is extended  

for a period of another four weeks.    

.....................J (DALVEER BHANDARI)

.....................J (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi; August 10, 2010.