RANCHI: The Jharkhand High Court kept its order reserved on the maintainability of PIL seeking investigation against Chief Minister Hemant Soren for alleged irregularities in the grant of mining leases and also on transactions of some shell companies purportedly operated by his family members and associates.
Disposing of a special leave petition filed by the Jharkhand Government on May 24, the Supreme Court had directed Jharkhand High Court to first decide on the maintainability of the PIL before proceeding further as per law.
According to the PIL filed by an RTI activist Shiv Shankar Sharma, CM Soren and his brother Basant Soren invested black money through businessmen Ravi Kejriwal, Ramesh Kejriwal, Amit Agrawal and several others in 28 small companies to get them converted into white money. Sharma in his PIL also demanded probe by the CBI and ED into the shell companies which are being run in other states including Jharkhand, Bihar and West Bengal.
“After hearing all sides on the issue of maintainability of the PIL and kept its order reserved till June 3,” said petitioner’s Counsel Rajeev Kumar. As soon as the hearing started, senior counsel Kapil Sibal appearing on behalf of the Jharkhand Government demanded dismissal of the petition saying that the petition was motivated and has been filed with ulterior motives by the petitioner.
Petitioner’s lawyer Rajiv Kumar said that other than the chief minister, a mining lease was issued in the favour of his brother and MLA Basant Soren and many persons close to him. The court asked Mukul Rohtagi to explain whether or not mining leases were issued to the CM, Basant Soren and others.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate, however, stressed on CBI inquiry based on the facts found by the central agency during the raids conducted by it in Jharkhand in connection with MNREGA scam.
The material collected shows involvement of people sitting on the top positions and the state government agencies won't be able to conduct an inquiry, he said.
Mehta was also of the view that the credentials of a petitioner could be challenged, but a petition can't be dismissed just because of certain limitations on technicalities and PIL rules. Mehta said the High court has enough power under Article 226 of the Constitution to even take suo moto cognisance and order inquiry to ensure justice, even if the petition is not as per rules.
Senior counsel Mukul Rohtagi, appearing on behalf of Hemant Soren, also questioned the credentials of the petitioner and informed the court about the previous involvement of his father in a case related to Shibu Soren.
“Soren’s Counsel informed the court that the petition has been filed with ulterior motive and the petitioner is targeting the chief minister due to personal enmity with his family," said Amritansh Vats, who is assisting Rohtagi in the case.