VIJAY DEO JHA
Ranchi, Nov 7: The Supreme Court has stated that it was wrong on the part of the Jharkhand High Court to take cognizance of twin PILs against state chief minister Hemant Soren on the basis of generalized submissions of the petitioner.
“It was not proper for the High Court to entertain a PIL which is based on mere allegations and half baked truth that too at the hands of a person who has not been able to fully satisfy his credentials and has come to the Court with unclean hands,” the Supreme Court observed while setting aside the Jharkhand High Court on the PIls filed by one Shiv Shanakr Sharma against Chief minister Hemant Soren.
Notably, a bench of Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia on Monday dismissed the PIL 4290/21 and 727/22. The first PIL is about allegations related to money laundering through shell companies and the second is related to CM Hemant Soren availing the stone mining lease in his name. The Supreme Court said that both the PILs were not maintainable and the petitioner had not come with a clean hand. The court passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Hemant Soren and state government respectively challenging the maintainability of the PILs.
“We are not for a moment saying that people who occupy high offices should not be investigated, but for a High Court to take cognizance of the matter on these generalized submissions which do not even make prima facie satisfaction of the Court, is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court,” the judgment reads
The petitioner, Shiv Shankar Sharma, in the PIL filed before the Jharkhand High Court stated that the Chief Minister of Jharkhand amassed a huge wealth by corrupt means by abusing his position as a Chief Minister and has invested this money in about 32 companies.
The petitioner gave details of these companies as to who are the directors, etc.
“The respondent or his relatives are not the Directors of the Companies. But then the petitioner states that he has information that he has been siphoning off this money and investing it in these shell companies through one Ravi Kejriwal who is allegedly a close associate of the Chief Minister. The allegations of the respondent of money laundering through shell companies have not been supplemented by any kind of evidence, whatsoever,” the Supreme Court stated.
The apex court pointed out that the names of persons who were allegedly responsible for the operation of these companies had been mentioned. But no concrete evidence was produced and it was merely stated these persons are connected or are close aides or related to Hemant Soren.
Further, none of the companies were made a party to the PIL before the Jharkhand High Court. But an order was sought from the High Court to direct the Enforcement Directorate to investigate these so called “shell companies” without even making the companies a party in the writ proceedings.”
“It is also an admitted fact that in relation to present two PILs, no FIR or complaint has been filed with the police or any authority agitating the grievances and these petitions have been filed before the High Court, without availing the statutory remedies,” the judgment reads.
The Supreme Court pointed out that the petitioner did not disclose his credentials and the past efforts made for similar reliefs as it has been mandated under the Rules, 2010. This further discredited these petitions.
“The petitioner in the PILs did not go with clean hands before the High Court. In our view, such a petition was liable to be dismissed at the very threshold itself. If the petitioner has a genuine reason to pursue the matter, he has his remedies available under the Companies Act or under other provisions of the law where he can apprise the relevant authorities of the misdeeds of the Directors or Promoters of the Companies,” the court said.
The court said what the petitioner stated was a generalized averments “which are nothing but mere allegations at this stage, the Court cannot become a forum to investigate the alleged acts of misdeeds against high constitutional authorities.”
