VIJAY DEO JHA
Ranchi, May 3: As the Jharkhand High Court is set to hear the PIL related to allegations against Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren for investing in several shell companies, legal experts are divided on whether or not the court directed the Enforcement Directorate to file a reply in this matter.
The next hearing is scheduled on May 13. In the order passed on April 22 by the bench of Chief Justice Dr. Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad the court impleaded Registrar of Companies-cum-Official Liquidator, Ministry of Corporate Affairs as the party-respondent.
A.S.G.I. Prashant Pallav, waived notice on behalf of the Registrar of Companies and directed the Registrar of Companies to furnish details of those companies which are alleged to be owned by the Chief Minister. Amit Kumar Das, representing the Enforcement Directorate, waived notice on behalf of the agency.
But lawyers and experts have a divided opinion on this matter of whether or not the court directed the Enforcement Directorate to file a reply as it directed the Registrar of Companies. They are interpreting ‘waive the notice’ in their own way.
“The court has not asked us to file any reply. I have received notice on behalf of the agency because the petitioner has made us a respondent. Receiving notice means the case will be served to the Enforcement Directorate also. The order is crystal clear,” said Amit Das. He said that a lawyer representing the CBI was also served notice.
But senior lawyer Rajiv Kumar who is representing the petitioner Shiv Shankar Sharma said that in the PIL like this, agencies are made respondents and agencies usually reply after getting the notice. “The ED should submit its own finding on the matter raised in the PIL. But we should wait till May 13 when the case is taken up,” said Rajiv Kumar.
Senior lawyer Prabhat Kumar who represented former Bihar chief minister Lalu Prasad Yadav in fodder scam cases said that unless the order is very categorical agencies never move.
“Waive the notice means that notice has been served to respective law officers of the concerned agencies and institutions who are present in the court. The thumb rule is don’t do which you have not been asked to do. Here in this notice, no instruction has been given to the Enforcement Directorate,” said Prabhat Kumar.
A senior retired CBI official who investigated several important cases including the fodder scam said that agencies generally clarify their position in the given case after getting the notice.
“For instance, sometimes the CBI says that it is ready to investigate or burdened with a number of cases. The Enforcement Directorate picks up cases from any predicate agency. In the present order, the Registrar of companies has been asked to file a reply on the allegation but there is no similar speaking order for the Enforcement Directorate or the CBI,” said the retired CBI official.
