RANCHI: In a major relief to Chief Minister Hemant Soren, the Jharkhand High Court on Wednesday dismissed a PIL filed against him and his family members for alleged allocation of mining lease in their names, saying that the petition is a repetition of an earlier one filed by petitioner Shiv Shankar Sharma which has already been rejected by the SC.
In his petition, RTI activist and advocate Sunil Mahto informed the court that while being the Minister of Mines Department, Soren allotted mining lease to himself on 88 decimal land in Angada. At the same time, 11 acres of land was allotted in the name of Soren’s wife Kalpana Soren and her sister Sarla Murmu’s company Sohrai Livestock Private Limited in the Barhe industrial area in Ranchi, he added.
CM’s press advisor Abhishek Prasad ‘Pintu’ and CM’s MLA representative Pankaj Mishra have also been allotted mining lease. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Ananda Sen delivered the judgment through virtual mode. The CJ is set to retire on Thursday. Notably, hearing in the case was completed in November itself and the bench had kept its order reserved.
Advocate Piyush Chitresh, who appeared on behalf of the state, said that the court dismissed the PIL because the Supreme Court had earlier rejected a similar PIL filed by one Shiv Shankar Sharma. Petitioner’s advocate and former advocate General Ajit Kumar, however, was of the view that his petition was distinctly different from the one filed by Shiv Shankar Sharma, who had raised only the mining lease issue. He had also submitted a detailed affidavit as to how this PIL was different. According to Mahto, Soren having a mine leased in his favour is a direct violation of the mandate of “not holding of an office of profit” rule for public representatives.
‘PIL already rejected’
Advocate Piyush Chitresh, who appeared on behalf of the state, said that court dismissed the PIL because SC had earlier rejected a similar PIL filed by one Shiv Shankar Sharma. Petitioner’s advocate was of the view that his petition was distinctly different