Facts
Lanka Municipal Board invited quotations for the supply of sand gravel through Tender Notice No. LMB320/2022/153–157 dated 18 May 2022. The petitioner quoted ₹925 per cubic metre and claimed that his was the lowest bid, whereas the Municipal Board accepted the bid of Chabi Tapadar at ₹1,250 per cubic metre. The petitioner alleged irregularities in the tender process, including the successful bidder’s failure to submit a Tax Clearance Certificate with the tender documents
Source reference: p.2, para. 2The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C) No. 1332/2025 seeking a criminal investigation into the alleged irregularities. That petition was dismissed on 15 September 2025 because no FIR had been lodged before approaching the Court, although liberty was granted to pursue appropriate remedies in accordance with law
Source reference: p.2–3, para. 3Following the dismissal, the petitioner claimed to have sent an FIR by registered post to the Officer-in-Charge, Lanka Police Station, on 18 September 2025. As the FIR was allegedly not registered, he submitted an RTI application to the Superintendent of Police, Hojai, on 23 June 2026, but received no information
Source reference: p.3, para. 4He thereafter filed the present writ petition under Article 226 seeking directions for registration and investigation of the FIR
Source reference: p.3, para. 5The State contended that the petitioner should first pursue the remedies available under Sections 173(4) and 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”)
Source reference: p.3–4, para. 6Issues
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 seeking registration and investigation of an FIR is maintainable when the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedies under Sections 173(4) and 175(3) of the BNSS.
Source reference: p.3–4, paras. 5–6; p.12–13, paras. 15–16Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction from the High Court for registration and investigation of the FIR concerning the alleged irregularities in the municipal tender process.
Source reference: p.3, para. 5; p.12–13, paras. 15–17Law Applied
Section 173(4), BNSS provides that where the officer-in-charge refuses to record information disclosing a cognizable offence, the aggrieved person may send the substance of the information in writing to the Superintendent of Police, who may investigate or direct investigation; failing that, the aggrieved person may approach the Magistrate. Section 175(3), BNSS empowers the jurisdictional Magistrate, upon consideration of an application supported by an affidavit under Section 173(4), to order a police investigation
Source reference: p.8–9, para. 12Relying on Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 409, and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277, the Court held that the ordinary remedy for non-registration of an FIR or improper investigation is to approach the superior police authority and thereafter the Magistrate, rather than directly invoking writ jurisdiction
Source reference: p.4–8, paras. 7–10The Court also relied on Sujal Viswas Attavar v. State of Maharashtra, (2026) 5 SCR 273, which reaffirmed that Article 226 should not ordinarily be invoked as a forum of first instance when an efficacious statutory mechanism under the BNSS is available, absent special circumstances such as an urgent threat to life or liberty
Source reference: p.10–12, paras. 13–14Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioner had not approached the jurisdictional Magistrate for an order directing registration or investigation of the FIR. His prior communication to the Superintendent of Police was treated as an RTI application rather than a properly pursued statutory remedy under Section 173(4) of the BNSS
Source reference: p.3–4, para. 4; p.12, para. 15Since Sections 173(4) and 175(3) establish a sequential and efficacious mechanism—first before the Superintendent of Police and thereafter before the Magistrate—the petitioner’s direct invocation of Article 226 was premature.
Source reference: p.12, para. 15Applying the principles in Sakiri Vasu, Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe, and Sujal Viswas Attavar, the Court declined to examine the merits of the alleged tender irregularities or whether they disclosed any criminal offence
Source reference: p.4–8, paras. 7–10; p.10–12, paras. 13–14; p.12–13, paras. 15–17Holding
The writ petition was not entertained as premature because the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedies under Sections 173(4) and 175(3) of the BNSS
The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Superintendent of Police in accordance with Section 173(4) and, thereafter, the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3), by following the prescribed procedure and formalities
Source reference: p.13, para. 16The Court clarified that its observations would not prejudice the merits of the petitioner’s allegations or determine whether the facts disclosed the commission of any criminal offence
Source reference: p.13, para. 17Acts & Sections Cited
8 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19735
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20233
Original Court PDF
Satyabrata DeyvsThe State Of Assam And 2 Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
