VIJAY DEO JHA
Ranchi, Dec 14: The court of Justice Pratibha Singh of Delhi High Court on Wednesday briefly heard the matter related to the Lokpal ordering a preliminary CBI inquiry into the alleged disproportionate assets of the JMM patriarch and MP Shibu Soren. The court deferred the hearing till February 8, 2023, and also directed the advocate of Shibu Soren to file a rejoinder.
Notably, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey had approached the Delhi High Court against its ex parte decision to stay the hearing of the disproportionate asset case against Shibu Soren by the Lokpal. The court of Justice Yashwant Varma of Delhi High court on September 12 had passed the stay order following objections raised by Shibu Soren through a Criminal Writ Petition.
Nishikant Dubey in the review petition had accused Shibu Soren of misleading the court and said that he suppressed facts to secure relief. The day when the Delhi High Court passed the order, Nishikant Dubey and Lokpal remained unrepresented before the court. Dubey had filed a petition before the Lokpal against Shibu Soren for amassing disproportionate assets in his name as well as family members and others. He demanded a CBI probe into the matter.
Nishikant Dubey had stated that he was not given any advance notice by respondent Shibu Soren ahead of the hearing. He came to know about the court judgment through the media reports. He said that Shibu Soren misled the court by stating that he had given advance notice to him.
The High Court in its order mentioned that although the Lokpal (first respondent) and Nishikant Dubey (second respondent) are stated to have been placed on advance notice. But none appeared on their behalf when the matter was called. Shibu Soren challenged the investigation and enquiry of his properties under terms of the provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
The CBI in its preliminary enquiry submitted a list of 82 such properties raised in the name of Shibu Soren, family members and others. Senior Supreme Court advocate Kapil Sibal who represented Shibu Soren had said that Section 53 of the Act debars the authority from taking further steps for investigation or enquiry on a complaint which may come to be laid in respect of acts committed seven years prior to the filing of that complaint. It was further pointed out that barring two instances, all other allegations against Shibu Soren fall foul of the injunct placed by Section 53.
On this Nishikant Dubey has stated that the list of enclosures submitted along with the preliminary report clearly mentions the list of properties acquired by Shibu Soren and his family members. He said that in the said list, two properties which are in the name of Basant Soren are shown to be acquired on 22nd October 2013 and 15th June 2020. Hence, even otherwise, “The said properties fall under the period of 7 years from the date of the complaint, as provided under Section 53 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. Therefore, it is a completely false submission on the part of the petitioner that none of the properties shown in the list falls foul of the injunct placed by Section 53 of the Act,” the petition reads.
It further states that four to five properties were clearly acquired within the period contemplated under section 53 of the Lokpal and Lokayukatas Act, 2013 and therefore the injunction placed by section 53 doesn’t apply in this case.
Nishikant Dubey has further pointed out that the inquiry as well as the proceedings initiated against Shibu Soren is at a very nascent stage and therefore, a stay on these proceedings at this stage will lead to final relief to the Petitioner.
Dubey further stated that Shibu Soren tried to mislead the court by referring to PIL 4290/21 that a matter of similar nature is pending before the court whereas the said proceedings have no bearing whatsoever in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
