9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd W.P. (PIL) No. 727 of 2022 have been filed by Arun Kumar Dubey and Shiv Shankar Sharma respectively and have been ordered to be heard side by side. 3. In W.P. (PIL) No. 4632 of 2019, the petitioner has sought for direction upon the Director, Directorate of Enforcement and the Assistant Director (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement to investigate the fifteen FIRs in Khunti Police Station and one in Arki Police Station Case pertaining to involvement of Ram Binod Prasad Sinha and others registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, 423, 424, 465 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11, 12(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In W.P. (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021, direction has been sought upon Director General, Income Tax (Investigation) to enquire into the money transferred of Soren Family in the name of respondent nos. 8 to 13, through SHELL Companies, as also to investigate the sources of income of private respondents and investigate the financial crime committed by respondent no. 6. In W.P. (PIL) No. 727 of 2022, direction has been sought to prosecute the Chief Minister-cum-Minister Department of Mines for misuse of office in getting the mining lease in his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r.Amit Kumar Das learned counsel for the said Department, waived notice on its behalf. Today, when the matter was called out, Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Senior Advocate appeared for the Enforcement Directorate and informed that after the aforesaid order, the Enforcement Directorate has conducted operations in which the materials collected during such operations have made certain startling revelations connected with the subject matter of this Public Interest Litigation. He has further submitted that before deliberation, he would request the Court to have a look at those materials. He further submits that since the operations are still going on, it will not be proper to bring those documents/facts on record as the same may hamper such operations. As such a request has been made by him to direct the aforesaid Directorate to produce those materials for perusal of this Court under sealed cover. He further contends that some time may be given to him for submitting the sealed cover. Let the same be produced for perusal of this Court on or before the next date of hearing. At this juncture, Mr.Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the State of Jharkhand, has made a submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oper to decide the objection raised on behalf of the Respondent-State of Jharkhand. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The question, which is required to be decided by this Court at this stage, is as to whether the Court can look into the documents and materials produced by the prosecution before the Court without first confronting the accused with these materials. The aforesaid issue fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. Chidambaram-Vs.-Directorate of Enforcement reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24, wherein, at paragraph 55, it has been laid down as hereunder:- "55. The Enforcement Directorate has produced the sealed cover before us containing the materials collected during investigation and the same was received. Vide order dated 29-8-2019, we have stated that the receipt of the sealed cover would be subject to our 3 finding whether the court can peruse the materials or not. As discussed earlier, we have held that the court can receive the materials/documents collected during the investigation and peruse the same to satisfy its conscience that the investigation is proceeding in the right lines and for the purpose of consideration o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the writ petition is not worth to be considered, since the embezzlement of public money is involved and the Secretary (Mines) of the State of Jharkhand has been apprehended from whose possession huge money has been recovered. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate assisted by Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel, has submitted that the State is making an objection for investigation of the matter by the Central Bureau of Investigation, but, very surprisingly no F.IR. has been instituted by the State, even though the Secretary (Mines) of the State of Jharkhand has been apprehended and incriminating materials have been recovered from her possession and disclosure of names of the high-ups of the State of Jharkhand and 5 others as would appear from the documents contained in the sealed cover. As such, for public interest at large, for fare investigation, it is necessary to hand over the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Mr. Rajiv Kumar, learned counsel, has submitted by making reference of W.P. (PIL) No. 4632 of 2019 that the issue pertaining to embezzlement of public money under the MGNREGA Scheme is involved, wherein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear of Interlocutory Application shall be read as 2022, being passed in I.A. No. 4349 of 2022. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, has submitted that an affidavit has been filed in order to bring the facts, which were argued on the previous date, on oath. Upon this, learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand has submitted that since the aforesaid affidavit has been filed today itself, therefore, time may be allowed to go through the contents of the same and if required to file response thereto. In view thereof, let the State file response to the affidavit filed by the Enforcement Directorate, if so required, as stated. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel for the State has informed to this Court that the State of Jharkhand has assailed the orders dated 17.05.2022 passed by this Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021 and W.P. (PIL) No. 727 of 2022 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, having Filing Diary No. 16067 of 2022 dated 19.05.2022, which is likely to be taken up tomorrow. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, has also submitted that order dated 17.05.2022 passed in W.P. (PIL) No. 42 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rising out of the disbursement of MANREGA funds to Khunti Zila Parishad implicating offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 423, 429, 465 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 11, 12(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; (ii) In Writ Petition (PIL) No 4290 of 2021; the petitioner, Shiv Shankar Sharma seeks a direction for an investigation into the alleged transfer of SLP(C) 9729-9730/2022 3 monies by the Soren family in the names of respondent Nos 8 to 13 through the instrumentality of certain shell companies; and (iii) In Writ Petition (PIL) No 727 of 2022; the petitioner Shiv Shankar Sharma seeks a direction for sanctioning the prosecution of the Chief Minister for obtaining a mining lease in his own name implicating offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code. 2. On 22 April 2022, when Writ Petition (PIL) No 4290 of 2021 came up before a Division Bench presided over by the Chief Justice, the Court recorded the submission of the counsel for the State that "an identical writ petition was dismissed with costs by this Court filed by the same counsel and the matter went up to the Supreme Court" w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner has adverted to the provisions of the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010, more particularly the provisions of Rules 4, 4-A, 4-B and 5. SLP(C) 9729-9730/2022 9. Since the High Court has observed in its order dated 13 May 2022 that it would deal with the maintainability of the petition upfront, we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate in the interests of justice that the Division Bench presided over by the learned Chief Justice does so before without proceeding to the merits of the public interest litigation. 10. The issue of maintainability should be dealt with by the High Court on the next date of listing when the proceedings are taken up. Based on the outcome of the objections to the maintainability of the proceedings, the High Court may thereafter proceed in accordance with law. 11. The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of in the above terms. 12. This Court has had no occasion to deal with the merits of the rival contentions which arise in the Special Leave Petitions or nor has it become necessary for this Court to express any view on the allegations which are levelled in the writ petition since that is a matter which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt is extracted and reproduced as under: - "10. The issue of maintainability should be dealt with by the High Court on the next date of listing when the proceedings are taken up. Based on the outcome of the objections to the maintainability of the proceedings, the High Court may thereafter proceed in accordance with law. 11. The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of in the above terms 12. This Court has had no occasion to deal with the merits of the rival contentions which arise in the Special Leave Petitions or nor has it become necessary for this Court to express any view on the allegations which are levelled in the writ petition since that is a matter which is pending consideration before the High Court." Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for the State of Jharkhand confines his argument with respect to the issue of maintainability as raised in W.P. (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021 only. At the time of hearing, referring the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, question was put to him twice by this Court as to whether he is raising the issue of maintainability in both the matters i.e. W.P. (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021 and W.P. (PIL) No. 727 of 2022. He submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned through illegal means has been invested in the companies, as per the details furnished in the writ petition under paragraph 2(A), the details of which is quoted as under:- (i).Anoop Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. (ii).Aurora Film Corpn Ltd. (iii).Aurora Studio Pvt. Ltd. (iv).Bhasha Construction & Industrial Projects Private Ltd. (v).Bright Financial Management Services Private Ltd. (vi).Destination Nirman Pvt. Ltd. (vii).Dumraon Textiles Pvt. Ltd. (viii).Elegant Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. (ix).Gaurang Alloys & Iron Ltd. (x).Gayatri Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. (xi).Jupiter Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. (xii).Lotus Re-roller & Metals Pvt. Ltd. (xiii).Maritime Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (xiv).Marsglory Corporate Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (xv).Max-Cot Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. (xvi).Mr. Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. (xvii).Muskan Minerals Pvt. Ltd. (xviii). Nidhi Agrawal House of Design Pvt. Ltd. (xix).Pinnsafe Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. (xx).Rajesh Auto Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. (xxi).S. M. Scrap Processing Co. Pvt. Ltd. (xxii).Salasar Dealtrade Pvt. Ltd. (xxiii).Shivmangal Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. (xxiv) .Simple Viniyog Pvt. Ltd. (xxv).Singhal Enterprises (Jharsuguda) Pvt. Ltd. (xxvi) .Singhal Projects ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ho works for him and they are the investment agents and have been asked by respondent no. 6 and 7 to take care of the business like, mining, liquor and real estate. It has been alleged that business of mining is being looked into by a group of persons, who are connected with each other. The details of such persons have been given at paragraph 5, relevant portion of which is quoted as hereunder: "The Business of Mining is being looked into by Ravi Kejriwal, Gulab Chand Jain, Umesh Kumar modi, Brijesh Dayal Gard, Shyam Babu Bose, Jawesh Mi, Hemant Agarwal, Moti Ram Dhakeri, Ajay Kaneria, Rajiv Agarwal, Ramesh Kejriwal, Ramakant Srivastava, Ajay Kumar, Sunil Kumar Ashwani Bose, Awanti Aggrawal, Amar Kumar & Rajesh Aggrawal, Vijay Prakash, Prem Nath Mali, Guruwe Tekriwal, Ansuri Goenka, Radha Krishna Aggrawal and Vivek Aggrawal, Ela Bose. All these persons are connected with each other in all companies. These are persons whose whereabout details are given herein after:- (a).Ravi Kezriwal:- Resident of Bokaro, has given changed address in DIN/DPIN No. 02317277 company incorporated before the Registrar of Companies. (b).Gulab Chand Jain:- A resident of Dhanbad close to Ravi Kejr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and siphoned through Ravi Kejriwal. (v).Radha Krishna Aggrawal & Vivek Aggrawal:-Having a showroom in Dhanbad and collects the money soren's family everyday and sends it to Kolkata to some of the persons, whose names are mentioned in this application. (w).Ela Bose: Also a resident of Bokaro, does the business in West Bengal from the funds raised illegally by Ravi Kejriwal." According to writ petitioner, these persons are connected with each other, in one company or the other just to invest black money, therefore, it requires thorough enquiry by the special agencies like Income Tax Department, Central Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement Directorate, so that investment of money through illegal means may surface and laundering of public money may be restricted. It has further been alleged, as would appear from paragraph 8, 9 and 10 of the supplementary affidavit, that likewise allegations have also been leveled against SHELL companies, which according to the petitioner are fake one. The writ petitioner has also given name and details of the companies in the affidavit showing that illegal money has been transferred from one company to another. It has further been alleged, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i and Magadh Project of CCL to Usha Martin Industries under the threat to the Vice-President of the company by Abhisek Prasad @ Pintoo. Further allegation has been made by stating that Mr. Hemant Soren has also managed to get an area of 11 acres in Chanho block for opening fisheries, food processing livestock in the name of M/s Sohrai Livestock Pvt. Ltd., Sohrai Bhawan, Harmu, in which, Mrs. Kalpana Murmu Soren and Sarla Murmu are Directors. Further, Sarla Murmu is also director of M/s Bihangam Builder's Developers Pvt. Ltd, Kanke Chowk, Ranchi. The other directors in Bihangam Builder's Developers are Nishant Singh and Nisikant Singh and Mrs. C. Singh. In one another firm, namely Rakpur Trading Pvt. Ltd, of which Ravi Kumar Sharma, Nishant Singh were directors since 2017, Sarla Murmu became director in 2021. Sarla Murmu is close relative of Mr. Hemant Soren, thus, it is clear that whatever the assets M/s Bihangam Builder Developers Pvt. Ltd have, it all belongs to Mr. Hemant Soren and Mrs. Kalpana Soren. Two more supplementary affidavits dated 05.05.2022 and 18.05.2022 were filed by the petitioner. In those affidavits also serious allegation of corruption and embezzlement of publ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal, [(2010) 3 SCC 402]. It has further been stated that though the petitioner has alleged that one Late Diwan Indranil Sinha had raised the issues similar to those raised in the present writ petition but has suppressed that said Late Diwan Indranil Sinha had filed writ petition being W.P.(PIL) No. 4218 of 2013 on the self- same allegations made by the petitioner in the present writ petition, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2013 imposing cost of Rs. 50,000/-. The appeal, being S.L.P. No. 4886 of 2014, preferred against the order passed by this Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed vide order dated 28.02.2014. It has been submitted that conduct of the petitioner in suppressing material facts itself is a good enough ground to dismiss the writ petition as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India (2006) 5 SCC 28]. 11. Rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner dated 11.05.2022: A rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating inter-alia about hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ease done in his own name, allthough, he being a Departmental Minister/Chief Minister, cannot do business (Article 191(9) of Constitution) of mining, and also committed criminal act, so he is liable to be prosectuted under section 7(A) & 13(I) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & section 169 of IPC, and also to cancel his membership of assembly of Jharkhand, and also he has violated section 9 of the Peoples Representation Act, 1950 & lastly, he has contravened the code of conduct framed by Union Government for the Hon'ble Chief Minister & Ministers of States. (B).For the direction upon the respondents especially respondent no.1 the Chief Secretary, Jhakhand to protect the relevant file of Department of Mines wherein, the mining lease of Angadha Mauza, Thana No.26, Khata No.187, Plot No.482, Area 0.88 Acre for that Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued on 16.06.21, approval of mining plan was given on 10.07.21, mining plan approved on 09.09.21 & finally on 09.09.21 the respondent no.7 has given application, which was approved in its 90th meeting dated 14-18 September 2021, within such a short time, although, the SEIAA has given environmental clearance to new High Court building ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the Election Commission of India. The respondent no.7 has also filed an affidavit stating inter-alia that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of credentials of the writ petitioner as also the notices have been issued by the Election Commission of India and as such, the matter is now being pending before the Constitutional Body, i.e., the Election Commission of India and therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed. It has been submitted that the aforesaid mining lease has been surrendered and as such, now there is no lease in favour of the respondent no.7. It has further been submitted that the writ petition suffers from the vice of mala fide inasmuch as the father of the writ petitioner stood as a witness in a criminal case against the father of respondent no. 7 v.i.z., Sri Sibu Soren, in which he was convicted. However, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the trial Court were reversed by the High Court, which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, due to grudge, the son who is writ petitioner herein, has filed the present writ petitions, which shows mala fide on the part of the writ petitioner and as such on this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand assisted by Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate General has submitted that the writ petition [W.P. (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021] is not maintainable, since the writ petitioner lacks credentials. It has been submitted that on the earlier occasion also, similar writ petition was filed by one Indranil Sinha being W.P.(PIL) No.4218 of 2013, raising similar allegation but the said writ petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs.50,000/- and the aforesaid order was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and as such, on the same self-allegations, again the writ petition has been filed which suggests that the writ petition has been filed for extraneous reason as also due to non-observance of the provision contained under the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 as under Appendix-19, the writ petitions are fit to be dismissed and accordingly, the same may be dismissed. Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents-State of Jharkhand, has referred Rule 4, 4-A and 5 of the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010, appended as Appendix 19 to the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 and submitted that writ p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was convicted, however, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the trial Court were reversed by the High Court, which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it cannot be said that the writ petitioner has approached this Court with bona fide intention. 17. Mr. Mukul Rohatagi, learned senior counsel has submitted that he is raising preliminary objection on behalf of respondent no. 7 in W.P. (PIL) No. 727 of 2022 who happens to be respondent no. 6 in W.P. (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021 in addition to what has been argued by Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents-State of Jharkhand. In support of his submission he has relied upon the judgment rendered in Dataraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharastra & Ors [(2005) 1 SCC 590]; T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India & Ors (2006) 5 SCC 28] and Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors [(2014) 5 SCC 530]. Further, argument has been advanced that the allegation as has been leveled of obtaining the mining lease by the Mines Minister of the State of Jharkhand is concerned, it cannot be construed to be illegal, due to subsequent development, i.e., the said lease ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14/2012 which is registered in pursuance to 16 FIRs registered in Khunti Police Station and Arki Police Station in the State of Jharkhand, which is the subject matter of W.P. (PIL) No. 4632 of 2019. It has further been submitted that during the course of investigation under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, a serious implication of one Pooja Singhal, Secretary Mines, State of Jharkhand has been found even in the material allotment of lease in favour of respondent no. 7 (WP (PIL) No. 727 of 2022). The role of some of the companies mentioned in paragraph-2(A) of W.P. (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021 has also emerged. These companies are spread over to the jurisdiction beyond the State of Jharkhand. It has further been stated at paragraph 8 of the affidavit filed by respondent no. 6 as appended to the writ petition (WP (PIL) No. 727 of 2022) that the Enforcement Directorate has been made respondents in all the writ petitions and served with notice issued by this Court. In response to the notice issued by this Court and as substantial evidence showing strong prima facie case of commission of serious cognizable offences has emerged, the Enforcement Directorate felt duty bound, and, thus had pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce it is admitted on the part of the respondent-State that the Enforcement Directorate has raided the residence of the Mines Secretary, namely, Mrs. Puja Singhal from whose possession huge amount of money has been recovered. The State has put the Mines Secretary under suspension, but very surprisingly no further action has been taken against her. Therefore, the issue of non-availability of prima-facie case cannot be said to be correct argument advanced by the State of Jharkhand. It has further been submitted that the State of Jharkhand is treating the writ petition to be an adversarial litigation in such a manner as if it is intending to defend the wrong doers. Since, the Enforcement Directorate has got ample evidences of complicity of the high-ups of the State of Jharkhand also on the political side, as such, for the ends of justice, the investigation is required to be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation. It is contended referring to the provision of Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, that there is no provision conferring power upon the Enforcement Directorate to institute FIR and as such, since, the State is not instituting the FIR, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest' is defined as under: "Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected." In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows : "Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government " In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Others, [(1992) 4 SCC 305], the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the scope of Public Interest Litigation and at paragraph 52 of the said judgment considering what is 'Public Interest' has laid down as follows :- "52. In Black's Law Dictionary (6th edn.), 'public interest' is defined as follows: "Public Interest - Something in which the public, the community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al motive or any oblique consideration. Similarly, a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves rejection at the threshold". It has further been propounded that the Public Interest Litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest, an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not be publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the Court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Rules, 2001 and credentials of the writ petitioner in filing the writ petitions. (III).The writ petitions have been filed with mala fide intention since father of the writ petitioner was the witness in a criminal case instituted against father of respondent no. 6, namely, Mr. Sibu Soren, in which he was convicted, however, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the trial Court were reversed by the High Court, which was finally affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (IV).The writ petitioner has directly rushed to this Court without exhausting the remedy available under the Code of Criminal Procedure. (V).Since the lease has been surrendered already by the Chief Minister, there is no occasion for continuation of this proceeding. 25. In order to settle the issue of maintainability, this Court is taking up objection raised by learned counsel for the concerned respondent one by one. Since objection No. 1 and 2 are inter-linked, they are taken up together to be answered by this Court: Objection No. 1: Rule 4, 4-A and 4-B of the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010, appended as Appendix 10 to the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ma facie credentials of the Petitioner before entertaining any case as Public Interest Litigation and thereafter, may issue notice to the Advocate General or to any other authority to come to a prima facie satisfaction regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition or information before entertaining the same as Public Interest Litigation. Learned senior counsel appearing for the concerned respondents has submitted by taking the plea of lack of credentials of the petitioner as he did not disclose that on earlier occasion similar matter was disposed of. 27. This Court, in order to delve into this issue, deems it fit and proper to refer the Relevant provision of the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 which reads as under:- "3. Only those matters shall be treated as Public Interest Litigation which involves substantial public interest aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury and for this the Bench hearing the matter shall ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the Public Interest Litigation. 4. The petitioner in a Public Interest Litigation shall state in clear terms of the reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se special procedure for satisfying itself with the credentials and bona fides for the petitioner and also find out relevant facts deemed necessary for the purpose of the case." It is, thus, evident that the matters shall be treated as Public Interest Litigation which involves substantial public interest aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury and further to encourage only genuine and bona fide Public Interest Litigation and discourage Public Interest Litigation filed for extraneous considerations, the Bench hearing a Public Interest Litigation shall first verify the prima- facie credentials of the petitioner before entertaining any case as Public Interest Litigation. Thereafter, notice may be issued to the Advocate General or to any other authority to enable the Bench hearing the matter to come to a prima facie satisfaction regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition or information before entertaining the same as Public Interest Litigation. There is no dispute that the aforesaid Rules have been formulated in terms of the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in order to encourage only genuine and bona fide Public Interest Litigation. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nformation before entertaining the same as Public Interest Litigation. It is only thereafter Public Interest Litigation shall be listed with appropriate office notices under the heading "For Orders" before the appropriate Bench. 28. This Court, in order to answer the issue of credentials of the petitioner, has gone across the affidavit and supplementary affidavits filed by the writ petitioner in the writ petitions in order to scrutinize as to whether such credentials have been given or not. From its perusal, it is evident that the petitioner has disclosed that the petitioner is tax payer and engaged in business for his livelihood. The petitioner has no personal interest either direct or indirect in the subject matter of instant Public Interest Litigations. The petitioner obtained information through R.T.I Act and he filed several Public Interest Petitions before this Court, details of which, have been given in preceding paragraphs. It further appears from the supplementary affidavit dated 21.04.2022, in paragraph 3 that prior to him one Late Diwan Indranil Sinha had sent representations with all the details of the companies and documents before the Director, C.B.I as also to othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, is of the view that even if there is criteria under rule 4 or 5 of the Rules, 2010, and the same has not strictly been followed but if there is prima facie material available indicating genuine public interest, the writ petitions should not and cannot be thrown away. The petitioner can be ousted but not be genuine issues raising the public cause. Doing that will frustrate the cause of justice. In this context, it also requires to refer that, as to whether procedural law which has been framed under High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 as Appendix 20 laying down certain conditions under Rule, 4, 4-A, 4-B and 5 of the Rules, 2010 should be considered to be directory or mandatory. It has been argued by learned senior counsel for the concerned respondents, these provisions are mandatory to be followed since it has been inserted in exercise of powers conferred by Section 29 of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000. It also requires to refer herein the judgment rendered in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. Vs. Union of India [(2005)6 SCC 344], wherein at paragraph 20 it has been held as under: "20. The use of the word "shall" in Order 8 Rule 1 by itself is not conclusive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the handmaids of justice and not the mistress of the justice. Ex debito justitiae, we must do justice to him. If a man has been wronged so long as it lies within the human machinery of administration of justice that wrong must be remedied." It is evident that from the said judgment that no man should suffer because of the mistake of the court. No man should suffer a wrong by technical procedure of irregularities. Rules or procedures are the handmaids of justice and not the mistress of the justice. Likewise, in the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal vs. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon [(1969) 1 SCC 869], it has been held at paragraph 5 as under: "5. The order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained. Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertance or even infraction of the Rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hree copies and failure to comply therewith may be an irregularity. Had no copy been furnished of any one of the three items, the result might have been different. In the present case, copies of all the three documents prescribed, have been furnished but not three copies of each. This omission or default is only a breach which can be characterised as an irregularity to be corrected by condonation on application by the party fulfilling the condition within a time allowed by the court. We must always remember that processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. It has been wisely observed that procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice. Where the non- compliance, tho' procedural, will thwart fair hearing or prejudice doing of justice to parties, the rule is mandatory. But, grammar apart, if the breach can be corrected without injury to a just disposal of the case, we should not enthrone a regulatory requirement into a dominant desideratum. After all, courts are to do justice, not to wreck this end product on technicalities. Viewed in this perspective, e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances, it will not be just and proper to go into technicality holding the writ petitions to be not maintainable rather for the ends of justice and public interest at large, these writ petitions would have to be held maintainable. 32. Issue of suppression of W.P. (PIL) No. 4218 of 2013 has also been raised by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid fact is not required to be stated in the writ petition reason being that the aforesaid writ petition was filed by one Diwan Indranil Sinha and not the present writ petitioner, however, he submits that he was the counsel in the said writ petition also but the same cannot be said to be a ground to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of suppression of fact. According to him, the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.11.2013, against which, SLP being Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 4886 of 2014 was preferred wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the said SLP vide order dated 28.02.2014. He again preferred a writ petition, however, it is stated that during pendency of the same, said Diwan Indranil Sinha died due t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tituted against the father of respondent no. 6 in W.P. (PIL) NO. 4290 of 2021, who happens to be respondent no. 7 in W.P. (PIL) No. 727 of 2022, in which, father of respondent no. 6 was convicted, however, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the trial Court were reversed by the High Court, which was finally affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 39. Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this cannot be said to be a proper ground for dismissing the writ petition on the issue of maintainability reason being that even accepting that father of writ petitioner was witness in the said criminal case that does not mean that the writ petitioner will be debarred from approaching the Court of law or he will be debarred from his fundamental right conferred by the Constitution of India merely on the ground that his father was a witness in a criminal case instituted against father of respondent no. 6 in W.P. (PIL) NO. 4290 of 2021, who happens to be respondent no.7 in W.P. (PIL) No. 727 of 2022. In support of his argument, he has relied upon the judgment rendered in Vishwanath Chaturvedi (3) Vs. Union of India & Ors [(2007) 4 SCC 380] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r which it is conceived, namely, to come to the rescue of the poor and downtrodden will be defeated. The courts should discourage the unjustified litigants at the initial stage itself and the person who misuses the forum should be made accountable for it. 41. Mr. Sibal, learned senior counsel for the respondents has further relied upon the judgment rendered in K. R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand and Others (supra) in partiuclar paragraph 7, wherein it has been held that it cannot be forgotten that a writ petitioner who comes to the court for relief in public interest must come not only with clean hands, like any other writ petitioner, but must further come with a clean heart, clean mind and a clean objective. Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India (supra), wherein it has been held that howsoever genuine a cause brought before a court by a public interest litigant may be, the court has to decline its examination at the behest of a person who, in fact, is not a public interest litigant and whose bona fides and credentials are in doubt. Further reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered in Dataraj Nathuji Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovide such services to significant segments of the population and to significant interests. Such groups and interests include the proper environmentalists, consumers, racial and ethnic minorities and others." 42. This Court after going through the aforesaid judgment is of the view that there is no dispute about the legal proposition that the Public Interest Litigation is to be entertained with utmost care and circumspection and is required to be decided by the Court of law taking into consideration the factual aspects pertaining to nature of allegation as to whether same is causing any harm to the social justice or there is involvement of public interest at large. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that the allegation of mala fide merely because father of writ petitioner was a witness in a criminal case in which he was convicted, however, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the trial Court were reversed by the High Court, which was finally affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is not sustainable. Herein, allegation as per the pleadings available on record is serious in nature, i.e. investment of ill-gotten money through various sources, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the remedy is available under Code of Criminal Procedure by approaching the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) of Code. 46. However, in the case in hand, prayer is for proper investigation by C.B.I. of the matter since it is a matter of money laundering and siphoning of public money by investing it though SHELL companies. It is settled position of law that such direction cannot be given under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr [(2001) 3 SCC 333]. It has been laid down in the aforesaid decision, while answering the question as to whether a Magistrate can direct CBI to conduct investigation in exercise of powers under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure or not, was restricted to the question whether a Magistrate can direct CBI to conduct investigation in exercise of his powers under Section 156(3) of the Code. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under: " ...we, therefore, reiterate that the magisterial power cannot be stretched under the said sub-section beyond directing the officer in charge of a police station to conduct the investigat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue of entertaining the Public Interest Litigations with utmost care and circumspect. There cannot be any quarrel with that proposition at all but after careful consideration we could not be persuaded by the respondents to throw way the writ petitions at the threshold on technical ground in the given facts and circumstances. 49. This Court, in view of the discussions made hereinabove, is of the considered view that the issue of approaching this Court without exhausting the remedy available under Section 154, 154(3) and 156(3) of the Code or Criminal Procedure is not available in facts and circumstances of the present case reason being that in this case direction has been sought for investigation of siphoning of public money through independent agency, like CBI, ED and Income Tax Department and such orders cannot be passed under the aforesaid provisions. In view thereof the issue pertaining to approaching this Court without exhausting the remedy available under the Code of Criminal Procedure is not worth to be considered. Accordingly, rejected. This issue is answered against the concerned respondents. 50. It has been urged by Mr. Mukul Rohatagi, learned senior counsel appearing f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
