Jharkhand HC Dismisses Advocate’s PIL Alleging Corruption By Chief Minister Hemant Soran
|The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) of an Advocate who alleged corruption by Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren .
The Court observed that the petition should be filed and entertained only when authorities do not take any action.
The primary grievance of the petitioner named Sunil Kumar Mahto was that the CM indulged himself in several corrupt activities and got mining leases in his name, in the name of his wife’s organization, and in the name of his wife.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Ananda Sen observed, “The other allegation is regarding certain financial irregularities with respect to M/s. Sohrai Livestock Farms Private Limited, M/s. Shiv Shakti Enterprises, etc. In the case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Shiv Shankar Sharma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that before seeking any redressal through a Public Interest Litigation in the High Court, the petitioner should approach the concerned authorities regarding the allegations that he is making. Only when the authorities do not take any action, the petition should be filed and should be entertained.”
Advocate Rajiv Kumar appeared for the petitioner while Advocate General Rajiv Ranjan and Advocate Amit Kumar Das appeared for the respondents.
In this case, the petitioner SK Mahto was an Advocate practicing in the Jharkhand High Court and claimed to be a public-spirited person. He further claimed himself to be vigilant and active so as to ensure that public offices of the State may function free of any corruption and he allegedly was helping aggrieved and needy persons to get right to justice. He alleged that the present CM of Jharkhand was involved in corruption related activities. He had filed a supplementary affidavit stating that he had made representation before the Governor Office and then filed an RTI (Right to Information) application seeking details regarding action taken on the representation.
The Public Information Officer informed him that the said representation was sent to the Cell of Chief Secretary for proper action, however, no action was taken. He also wrote letter to the President of India, Prime Minister, and Home Minister and the CPIO of the President’s Secretariat provided information that the matter was sent to the Home Secretary. Accordingly, Under Secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs said that the matter was related to the Ministry of Mines and hence transferred to them while the Ministry of Mines informed that the matter was related to the State Government. He alleged that the authorities were shifting liabilities on each other and not taking any action in the matter of corruption by persons sitting in higher posts.
The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides noted, “A conjoint reading of the reported judgment and the facts of the present case reveal that the main allegation by the petitioner against respondent No.7 is regarding the illegal mining lease that has been allegedly issued in his favour. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the fact that the Election Commission of India has issued notice to the Chief Secretary seeking certain information which has been supplied and the matter regarding mining lease in faovur of the Chief Minister and his disqualification is pending consideration before the Election Commission of India. Thus, it is apparent that this question was considered by the Election Commission of India. None of the parties could inform the Court about the final decision of the aforesaid proceedings.”
The Court said that the matter relating to illegal grant of mining lease in favour of CM is already pending either before the Election Commission of India or the concerned authority and for that, once the Supreme Court has not exercised its discretion to direct investigation in the name of CM, it shall be in the teeth of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court to pass any further order in favour of the petitioner.
“Annexure 2 is the only representation made by the petitioner and it is regarding the self same allegation of grant of mining lease in favour of respondent No.7 with respect of stone quarry (pathar khadan), etc. … Thus, it is our considered view that if we allow the writ application and direct investigation of the case against respondent No.7 and others, then it will be in the teeth of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Shiv Shankar Sharma (supra)”, added the Court.
The Court also said that the petitioner has not approached the authorities prior to filing the writ application regarding any allegation or grievances with respect to the prayer made in the instant PIL.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Cause Title- Sunil Kumar Mahto v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.