IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Ravi Ranjan, JJ.
Shiv Shankar Sharma, S/o Sri Gautam Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondents
W.P. (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021 with W.P. (PIL) No. 727 of 2022
Decided On : 03-06-2022
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 192,226 - Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Section 154, 154(3) and 156(3) - Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 - Section 9-A - Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 66(2) - Jharkhand High Court [Public Interest Litigation] Rules,2010 - Rule 4,4-A,4-B,5 - Decision on questions as to disqualifications of members - Power of High Courts to issue certain writs - Information in cognizable cases - Submitted rebutting argument advanced on behalf of State - Whether prima-facie case is available for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, so that, judicial proceedings may not be misused by way of the Public Interest Litigation – Held, issue of approaching this Court without exhausting the remedy available under Section 154, 154(3) and 156(3) of the Code or Criminal Procedure is not available in facts and circumstances of the present case reason being that in this case direction has been sought for investigation of siphoning of public money through independent agency, like CBI, ED and Income Tax Department and such orders cannot be passed under the aforesaid provisions – Order accordingly
ORDER :
1. With the consent of the parties, hearing of the matters has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and/or visual quality.
2. At the outset it requires to refer herein that three ‘Public Interest Litigations’ being W.P. (PIL) No. 4632 of 2019; W.P. (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021 and W.P. (PIL) No. 727 of 2022 have been filed by Arun Kumar Dubey and Shiv Shankar Sharma respectively and have been ordered to be heard side by side.
3. In W.P. (PIL) No. 4632 of 2019, the petitioner has sought for direction upon the Director, Directorate of Enforcement and the Assistant Director (PMLA), Directorate of Enforcement to investigate the fifteen FIRs in Khunti Police Station and one in Arki Police Station Case pertaining to involvement of Ram Binod Prasad Sinha and others registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, 423, 424, 465 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11, 12(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
In W.P. (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021, direction has been sought upon Director General, Income Tax (Investigation) to enquire into the money transferred of Soren Family in the name of respondent nos. 8 to 13, through SHELL Companies, as also to investigate the sources of income of private respondents and investigate the financial crime committed by respondent no. 6.
In W.P. (PIL) No. 727 of 2022, direction has been sought to prosecute the Chief Minister-cum-Minister Department of Mines for misuse of office in getting the mining lease in his own name.
4. When the matter was taken up on 22nd April, 2022, learned senior counsel appearing for the State has submitted that similar issue was earlier dismissed by this Court, which was affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court.
For ready reference, order dated 22nd April, 2022 passed in W.P. (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021 is quoted as under:
Learned counsel appearing for the State has informed that an identical writ petition was dismissed with cost by this Court filed by the same counsel and the matter went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where also, the S.L.P. was dismissed.
Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned A.S.G.I. waives notice on behalf of the newly impleaded party-respondent no.14.
Let him seek instructions from the Registrar of Companies regarding the Companies against which allegations have been made in this writ petition.
Let the details of those Companies be furnished by the counsel appearing for the Registrar of the Companies to this Court.
Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel waives notice on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate.
Let the copy of the supplementary affidavit be served upon all the respondents by the writ petitioner.
Put up this matter on 13.05.2022 along with the records of W.P. (PIL) No. 4218 of 2013.” Emphasis Supplied
Thereafter, the matter was heard on 13th May, 2022, on which date following order was passed:
The Registrar of Companies has filed an affidavit informing this Court that he can provide details of only four Companies which fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the said respondent. So far other 45 companies are concerned, they fall within the jurisdiction of RoC, Patna, Delhi, Haryana, Chhatisgarh, Cuttuck (Orissa) as well as Kolkata (West Bengal). The Enforcement Directorate (respondent no.5) was also noticed, however, Mr.A
P. Chidambaram-Vs.-Directorate of Enforcement reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24
State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India
Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors.
Kunga Nima Lepcha and Ors. Vs. State of Sikkim and Ors.
P. Chidambaram, Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
M. Subramaniam and Anr. Vs. S. Janaki and Anr.
Dataraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharastra & Ors [(2005) 1 SCC 590]
Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors
Vishwanath Chaturvedi (3) Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Raju Ramsing Vasave Vs. Mahesh Deorao & Ors.
Ramjas Foundation and Others v. Union of India and Others
K. R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand and Others
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Others
Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. Vs. Union of India.
Chinnammal & Ors Vs. P. Arumugham & Anr.
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, [(1988) 2 SCC 602
Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal vs. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon
State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Shamlal Murari & Anr.
Dataraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors [(2005) 1 SCC 590]
Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Heman Yaswant Dhage and others [(2016) 6 SCC 277]
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr [(2001) 3 SCC 333]
(1) Public Interest Litigations – What is of crucial significance in a Public Interest Litigation is bona fide of petitioner who files PIL – It is an extremely relevant consideration and must be exam....
Public interest litigants must have clean hands and credible credentials, and the courts must validate claims to prevent frivolous petitions, while retaining the sanctity of public interest litigatio....
Point of Law : Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice....
The court emphasized the need for petitioners in public interest litigation to come with clean hands and be above suspicion, and laid down parameters to prevent misuse of public interest litigation.
Public interest litigations must be genuine and not motivated by personal agendas; previous judgments on similar issues bind the parties, barring new petitions.
Public Interest Litigations must be filed with bona fides, and failure to disclose relevant facts can lead to dismissal.
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.