IN THE Order passed on February 18, 2026, in the case-VBR Menon v. The Chief Controller of Explosives, Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO), Nagpur and 8 others, a Madras High Court Division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan, has pointed out that “the material which is floating at the surface requires much deeper and fair investigation by examining the role of beneficiaries for whose benefit the entire system is operating”. The HC has stated that it gave to the respondent-authorities more than one opportunity to come out with a satisfactory response; but till date, no satisfactory response has come, much less fair investigation by the concerned investigating agency.

 

The Court has stated that without any hesitation it can say that the manner in which the investigation has been held or any further investigation that is going on, is not in proper direction and the investigating agency has registered offences only against those who are involved in preparing fake ‘no objection certificates’. Except in Erode and Dindigul Districts, in other cases, the role of beneficiaries have not been examined, despite “our directions” issued from time to time. The petitioner has moved the Court for direction to the respondents 1 and 2 –The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, Chennai, to cancel all the Final Explosives License issued by the Respondent-2 to Respondents 4 to 7 –M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., M/s HPC Ltd. and M/s Nayara Ltd. to establish and operate Petroleum Retail Outlets in Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry by accepting the forged and fabricated copies of No Objection Certificates of district authorities and accompanying documents without verification and consequently to initiate appropriate criminal and civil actions in accordance with law against the second and fourth to seventh respondents for the offences committed by them. While hearing a habeas corpus petition in the case of Ms Lalitha, in the matter of detention based on certain allegations that the petitioner’ s husband and his associates created fake no objection Certificates, as though, those were issued by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, using fake seal as well as forged signatures of the authority, the Court felt the need of deciding the larger issue of fake ‘no objection certificates’ obtained by various parties. This also raises a serious doubt about the role of the beneficiaries.

 

The beneficiaries, thereafter, carried these no objection certificates to obtain explosive license. In this manner, without there being any no objection certificate issued by the competent authority, after conducting an inspection as required under the explosive laws and in conformity with rules contained in Rule 131 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, large number of explosive licenses were issued and the beneficiaries on the basis of these explosive licenses, have established and have been operating various petroleum outlets. The power of the HC to direct independent investigation by other agency has been considered by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case- State of West Bengal and others v.Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others -2010 (3) SCC 571, wherein ,the Court has held as under : “68 (vii) if in terms of Entry 2 of List II of the Seventh Schedule on the one hand and Entry 2-A and Entry 80 of List I on the other, an investigation by another agency is permissible subject to grant by the State concerned, there is no reason, as to why, in an exceptional situation, Court would be precluded from exercising the same power which the Union could exercise in terms of the provisions of the Statute. “ln our opinion, exercise of such power by the Constitutional Courts would not violate the doctrine of separation of powers. In fact, if in such a situation the court fails to grant relief, it would be failing in its constitutional duty.” Though ordinarily, the HC would be slow in directing handing over of investigation to any other agency, however, in this case as the Court’s orders would go to show, in the past, despite repeated orders by the Court, the agency is not holding investigation in proper direction and till date, it claims to be clueless and at the same time ignorant of the role played by various persons including the beneficiaries in the matter.

 

There is Court, therefore, constrained to draw an inference that the investigation is not fair and independent. In a situation like this, this Court has ample powers to hand over investigation to some other investigating agency. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has also observed that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these Constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said Articles requires great caution in its exercise. In so far as the question of issuing a direction to the CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although, no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised, but time and again it has been re-iterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local Police. Relying upon the Supreme Court’s dictum and the law laid down by it and applying all that to the facts and circumstances of this case, The HC was inclined to hand over investigation of this case to the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI).

 

The HC has directed the Addl. DGP,(CBCID)to hand over the entire papers relating to investigation conducted so far to the appropriate authority as may be deputed by the Director, CBI, New Delhi. Striking a note of caution, the HC directed the Union of India’s counsel, V.T. Balaji, that if any other person is found to involved in and in conspiracy, along with the accused, who have already been involved with those who alleged to have prepared forged and fake, ‘no objection certificates’.