JMM's Shibu Soren Challenges Delhi HC Single Judge Order

Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) leader Shibu Soren has approached the Delhi High Court challenging the single judge order refusing to interfere with the Lokpal proceedings against Soren based on a complaint filed by the BJP MP Nishikant Dubey in Disproportionate Assets (DA) case.

The appeal came up for hearing before the division bench headed by Justice Rekha Palli.

The matter was adjourned for tomorrow as senior advocate Kapil Sibal was busy with another matter before the Supreme Court.

Latter on he appeared and mentioned the matter. He submitted that the matter is coming up before Lokpal for a hearing tomorrow.

However, the bench said that it will hear the matter early in the supplementary list.

The Delhi High Court on January 22, 2024, refused to interfere with the proceedings of Lokpal.

Soren has filed an appeal though advocate Vaibhav Tomar. It is submitted that the finding of the Learned Single Judge that the Writ Petition before the High Court was premature is erroneous as the Appellant contended that it was a case of patent lack of jurisdiction of the Lokpal to issue process in the complaint filed under Section 20(1) of the Act.

It is stated that there is a time limitations for making investigation or inquiry by the Lokpal.

The appeal said that the jurisdiction of Lokpal under Section 14 has to be read with Section 53 of the Act where the limitation to investigate or inquire into the complaint is provided.

It is also submitted that Section 53 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 bars the Lokpal from enquiry or investigating into any complaint if made after the expiry of a period of 7 years on the date on which the offence mentioned in the Complaint is alleged to have been committed.

The petitioner has stated that a bare perusal of the complaint would indicate that the offence alleged in the complaint is beyond this period of 7 years. It was, therefore, the case of the Appellant/Writ Petitioner that the proceedings initiated before the Lokpal were without jurisdiction, nullity and not maintainable. in law.

In the January 22, 2024, judgement Justice Subramonium Prasad had said that This Court does not want to enter into this realm at this juncture and it is for the Lokpal to decide as to whether there is sufficient material to proceed further for investigation or not in order to subserve the purpose for which the Act has been brought out.

The High court had rejected the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that the entire complaint is completely motivated and Lokpal would invariably order for investigation cannot be accepted.

"The Office of Lokpal is completely independent and an argument that the Lokpal would be influenced by political consideration cannot be countenanced. This allegation that the proceedings before the Lokpal is vitiated and can be politically motivated, cannot be accepted," Justice Prasad said.

The high court had held, "The Lokpal will examine the entire matter independently and shall take a decision as to whether an investigation has to be ordered or not which order is always amenable for challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The CBI has submitted a preliminary inquiry and the Lokpal has to take a decision as to whether to proceed further in the case or not."

The high court also said that the Lokpal is yet to apply its mind to the material provided by the CBI as to whether an investigation is necessary or not.

"It is well settled that while conducting an inquiry, the material that can be unearthed is limited compared to the material that is unearthed when an investigation is conducted by a competent authority," Justice Prasad said.

JMM Chief and Rajya Sabha MP Shibu Soren approached the High Court to quash the complaint pending before Lokpal of India.

The Petitioner had also prayed for quashing orders of August 5, 2020, September 15, 2020, and August 4, 2022, passed by Lokpal in the said complaint.

BJP MP Nishikant Dubey had filed a complaint which was registered with Lokpal.

It is alleged in the said complaint that the Petitioner in his name and the name of his family members including sons, daughters, daughters-in-law, friends, associates and various companies etc. has acquired several immoveable properties including plots of lands (residential, commercial and built up properties) in various districts of Jharkhand such as Ranchi, Dhanbad, Dumka etc.

It is also alleged that the Petitioner and his family members. including his son have invested in various companies owned by one Amit Agarwal and his family members. It is stated that the said Amit Agarwal is a very close friend of the Petitioner's family.

The complaint stated that all the companies owned by Amit Agarwal despite having shown consistent losses in their books of accounts, have been purchasing large properties in and around Ranchi and Kolkata.

It is stated that the Petitioner has acquired properties completely disproportionate to his known sources of income.

It was also stated in the complaint that the Petitioner has been indulging in corrupt practices for many years and has illegally usurped huge portions of the lands belonging to poor tribals of the Santhal tribe at throw-away prices much below the prevailing circle rates.

Lokpal had passed an order under Section 20(1) (a) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a preliminary inquiry against the Petitioner to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter.

On July 1, 2021, comments were sought from the Petitioner Soren as required under Section 20(2) of the Act, on the nature of acquisition, cost of construction and source of funds for the 82 properties annexed to the said notice on or before July 15, 2021.

A reply was given by the Petitioner on July 10, 2021, informing that he was not the owner of the said properties. The Petitioner sought additional time of 60 days to submit his comments.

(ANI)