VIJAY DEO JHA
Ranchi, April 23: The Advocate General (AG) of Jharkhand Rajiv Ranjan and senior lawyer Rajiv Kumar have crossed their swords over a fresh PIL filed against Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, his family members, and close friends.
A day after the AG accused Rajiv Kumar of misleading the Jharkhand High Court and the media, the latter said that the AG said half-truth. “Yes, that petition was dismissed and the cost of the case was imposed and I was the lawyer of Diwan Indranil Sinha. But the AG has not said that the Supreme Court had waived the cost of the case. The Supreme court said that the High court rejected the petition since sufficient evidence to back the allegations was missing. Besides, the petitioner should have first approached appropriate authorities to seek an investigation.”
Rajiv Kumar is the lawyer of petitioner Shivshankar Sharma who filed a PIL to demand a probe into the shell companies where the chief minister, brother Basant Soren, and his other associates parked the ill-gotten wealth.
On Friday, Jharkhand High Court issued a notice to the Registrar of Companies to verify whether there was any iota of truth in the allegations made by the petitioner.
The AG in a hurriedly called press conference alleged that the petitioner and his lawyer have misled the court. He said that the petitioner reproduced the same PIL that another petitioner, late Diwan Indranil Sinha had filed in 2013. The AG claimed that the said petition was rejected by the court and also slapped a fine of Rs 50,000 as the cost of the case. The AG said that Rajiv Kumar was the lawyer of Diwan Indranil Sinha also.
Asked how the petition of Diwan Indranil Sinha is different from that of Shivshankar Sharma on the matter of separation of facts, Rajiv Kumar said that new evidence and evidence have been attached.
He said that after the High Court dismissed Diwan Indranil Sinha’s petition, he approached the CBI along with sufficient evidence for the investigation. Kumar claimed that the CBI after examining evidence had said that it was a prima facie case of corruption. The CBI said that since they are public servants permission is required for investigation.
The lawyer said that in both cases prayers made and the petitioners are different. “There is no end to PIL till justice is given. PIL follows the principle of complete justice. If a culprit was not caught yesterday that doesn’t mean that he should not be caught today or tomorrow. Diwan Indranil Sinha fell ill and he died. He did not get justice. Shiv Shankar Sharma has approached the court with fresh evidence. The AG is ignorant of the basic principle of PIL,” he said.
