VIJAY DEO JHA
Ranchi, June 1: The Jharkhand High Court on Wednesday completed the hearing of the question of the maintainability of a PIL of Shiv Shankar Sharma related to the allegation against the chief minister Hemant Soren and his associates for parking their unaccounted money in the shell companies.
The double bench of Chief Justice Dr Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad posted a hearing on June 3 when the court would hear arguments related to the merits of the PIL. Jharkhand Government represented by Kapil Sibal and Hemant Soren represented by Mukul Rohtagi argued before the court to dismiss the PIL on technical and legal grounds.
The Supreme Court directed the High Court to hear the matter related to the maintainability of the PIL besides the credential of the petitioner and merit of the matter of the PIL 4090/2021.
Kapil Sibal said that the petitioner has not disclosed his full history as well as the chronology of the case which he is filing. He said that there was a serious issue of the correctness of the content and the petitioner directly approached the court. He should have exhausted other options namely police FIR and magisterial complaint. Kapil Sibal said that the petitioner has not disclosed his business and how and when he got some information through the RTI besides he has not annexed any related document.
“There are three related PILs by three petitioners and they have a common lawyer who is arguing. There are mere allegations based on speculations which have no colour of prima facie. The petitioner has not come with a clean heart, clean mind and clean intention. He has suppressed information that a similar PIL was dismissed by the court with the cost of the case. His motives are questionable. Even his lawyer misleads people and media and a bad perception against the government is created,” said Kapil Sibal.
Kapil Sibal said that Shiv Shankar Sharma filed the petition with a motive to settle scores against the chief minister. He said that Shiv Shankar Sharma’s father Gautam Sharma was a witness against Chief Minister’s father Shibu Soren in a murder case. He said that Gautam Sharma made a false statement against Shibu Soren in the case in which he was exonerated.
Kapil Sibal objected to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) filing a petition in this case and said that ED has no jurisdiction in a case where no predicate offence has taken place. He also disputed the locus standi of the sealed cover report of the investigation submitted by the ED for the perusal of the case. He said that the ED started an investigation of the MNREGA case and suddenly jumped into the investigation of the shell company and illegal mining.
When Kapil Sibal was questioning the maintainability of the PIL on various legal grounds like the non-compliance of the guidelines and various others the Chief Justice pointed out that the first PIL of the country was made admitted which was sent on a postcard. “I too had taken cognizance of a letter written by a man whose mother was denied treatment of the black fungus at the RIMS. We too have rejected many PILs with the cost of the case,” the Chief Justice said.
Responding to objections, Rajiv Kumar, lawyer of the petitioner said that the petitioner furnished personal details and declaration while filing the PIL. He said that through further supplementary affidavits he filed more information. He said that the petitioner was not aware of the fact that a similar PIL was filed by Diwan Indranil Sinha which was rejected with the cost of the case.
“The Supreme Court waived the cost of the case and said that the PIL was lacking sufficient evidence. The SC said that petitioner Diwan Indranil Sinha should approach the competent agency for investigation. The petitioner, who is no more now, had approached CBI and other agencies for investigation. The CBI replied that it can investigate only if ordered by a competent court. In between, he died. He demanded the CBI probe, not a police probe given the seriousness of the matter and the people involved. Can a judicial magistrate order a CBI inquiry?” said Rajiv Kumar.
Tushar Mehta made a strong rebuttal of points raised by Kapil Sibal and Mukul Rohtagi.
“State is defending a private individual. Had the state been concerned about the welfare of the people it would have allowed the investigation. Can a PIL on a serious matter be thrown on the ground of technicalities and non-compliance? Throw away the petitioner not his petition. The ED can’t bluff in the matter of investigation,” he said.