SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
Shibu Soren – Appellant
Versus
Lokpal of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J.
1. The Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the complaint bearing Complaint No. C-38/2020-Lokpal pending before Respondent No.1/Lokpal of India. The Petitioner has also prayed for quashing Orders dated 05.08.2020, 15.09.2020 and 04.08.2022 passed by Respondent No.1 in the said Complaint.
2. The Petitioner herein is a sitting Member of the Parliament in Rajya Sabha nominated from the State of Jharkhand. The Petitioner is also the President of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, a State Political party in the State of Jharkhand. The complainant (Respondent No.2 herein) is also a Member of Parliament in Lok Sabha from Godda, Jharkhand.
3. It is stated that Respondent No.2, filed a complaint which was registered as Complaint No. C-38/2020-Lokpal with Respondent No.1 herein. It is alleged in the said complaint that the Petitioner in his name and in 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.
Kailaksh v. Nankhu (2005) 4 SCC 480
Inspector General of Registration v. K. Baskaran (2020) 14 SCC 345
State of Madhya Pradesh. vs. Ram Singh
Swatantar Singh v. State of Haryana and Others
Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh
State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Justice R.A. Mehta(Retd.) and Ors.
M. Pentiah v. Muddala Veeramallappa
S.P. Jain v. Krishna Mohan Gupta
RBI v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd.
Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam, (1989) 3 SCC 709 : AIR 1990 SC 123, SCC p. 754
UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor
Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited & Ors. v. Eastern Metals and Ferro Alloys & Ors.
Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar
The court emphasized the independence of the Lokpal and the need for it to make an independent decision on whether an investigation was necessary, and found that the time limits for the preliminary i....
The Lokpal is required to consider whether a prima facie case exists before directing an investigation, and the decision on the complaint being barred by limitation need not be decided at the stage o....
Split verdict on Section 17A PC Act: upheld with reading down mandating Lokpal/Lokayukta screening for prior approval; alternatively struck down as violative of Article 14, resurrecting invalid mecha....
The court ruled that a preliminary inquiry does not require prior notice to a public servant and that the Lok Ayukta can proceed without forwarding a copy of the complaint unless a formal investigati....
The Lokpal has the authority to refer matters to specialized agencies for inquiries and investigations, and interference in its proceedings should be avoided unless there is something palpably wrong ....
Once the court comes to the conclusion that the authority concerned was acting within the scope of its powers and had some material, however meagre, on which it could reasonably base its opinion, the....
Compliance with statutory procedures is mandatory; failure to adhere to outlined procedures vitiates legal proceedings and investigations.
Election to legislative assembly – Investigation - Proceedings for judicial review, the court could examine an error of fact touching the merit of decision only if it has a direct nexus to the decisi....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.