Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Shibu Soren - Appellant
Versus
Lokpal of India & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 13213 of 2022 & CM Appls. 39980 of 2022, 43537 of 2022
Decided On : 22-01-2024
Corruption - Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act - Section 20(1)(a), Section 20(3), Section 53 - The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner, a sitting Member of Parliament, sought to quash a complaint alleging corrupt practices and illegal acquisition of properties. The Lokpal directed a preliminary inquiry by the CBI to ascertain a prima facie case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petition was premature as the Lokpal had not yet applied its mind to the material provided by the CBI. The court emphasized the independence of the Lokpal and the need for it to make an independent decision on whether an investigation was necessary.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the complaint should be dismissed on the ground of being hit by Section 53 of the Act. The court also considered the mandatory nature of the time limits for the preliminary inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the writ petition was premature and should not interfere with the mechanism provided under the Act unless there was a patent lack of jurisdiction or the complaint was vexatious. The court also found that the time limits for the preliminary inquiry were not mandatory.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of without making any observation on the merits of the case.
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.
4. 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 states 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.
5. It is stated that the Petitioner has acquired properties completely disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is 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 throwaway prices much below the prevailing circle rates. It is also alleged that these properties have been purchased by the Petitioner abusing/misusing his official position and obtaining undue advantage from third parties. It is also alleged in the complaint that the Petitioner and his family members have falsely declared themselves as residents of various districts of the State of Jharkhand and have violated the provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 while acquiring properties situated in these districts. The complaint also states that the family members of the Petitioner have bought lands admeasuring 30 khatas situated at Harmu, Ranchi in Jharkhand which is worth about Rs.3 crores as per the two sale deeds dated 06.02.2009 and 04.03.2009. The complaint contains a list of the properties, which have been allegedly acquired illegally by the Petitioner and his relatives. The complaint also makes allegations that the Petitioner and his family members have violated various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Benami Properties Act inasmuch as properties have been bought in the name of the companies of Amit Agarwal and his family members.
6. It is also stated that Amit Agarwal had constructed a 22 storey building in Salt Lake, Kolkata in which the Petitioner and his family members have invested huge amounts of money. It is stated that various shell companies have been incorporated for giving donations to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha which is a Political Party and the Petitioner is the President of that Party.
7. The complaint has been filed in the format as prescribed under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 read with Lokpal (Complaint) Rules, 2020. On receipt of the complaint, on 15.09.2020, Respondent No.1 passed an order in terms of Section 20(1) (a) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a preliminary inquiry against the Petitioner to ascertain whether
AI
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....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
