PIL Against MP Not Maintainable as Court Already Ruled Similar Plea Wasn't a PIL: Jharkhand High Court - 2025-07-21

Jharkhand High Court Dismisses PIL Against MP, Cites Previous Ruling and Non-Impleadment of Affected Party

Ranchi, Jharkhand – The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into allegations of disproportionate assets against Dhanbad MP, Shri Dhullu Mahto. A division bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar held the petition non-maintainable, noting that a coordinate bench had previously ruled a similar plea by the same petitioner was not a PIL.

The Court also highlighted the petitioner's failure to make Shri Dhullu Mahto a party to the current proceedings, a fatal flaw when making serious allegations against an individual.

---

Background of the Litigation

The petitioner, Somnath Chatterjee, approached the High Court for the third time with allegations against the Member of Parliament. He sought the formation of an SIT comprising officers from the ED, CBI, Income Tax Department, and Jharkhand Police, to be headed by a retired High Court judge, to investigate alleged corruption and illegal activities.

This legal battle began over a decade ago with W.P.(PIL) No. 6438 of 2011 . In that case, the High Court, in its order dated March 30, 2016, had explicitly stated, "this is not a Public Interest Litigation at all," although it directed the authorities to investigate the claims.

Subsequently, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous petition in 2018 seeking a status report on the investigation. This petition was dismissed on April 4, 2024, with the Court terming it a "wagering attempt by the petitioner."

Arguments Before the Court

Petitioner's Submissions: Mr. Anurag Tiwary, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the counter-affidavits filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Income Tax Department (ITD) themselves suggested the existence of disproportionate assets. He contended that the investigation was proceeding at an unduly slow pace and that the Court's intervention was necessary to ensure a timely and fair conclusion.

Respondents' Objections: Counsels for the ED and ITD strongly opposed the PIL on grounds of maintainability. They argued:

1. Res Judicata Principle: The Court had already determined in 2016 that a similar petition by the same petitioner on the same subject matter was not a PIL. That order was never challenged and has attained finality.

2. Non-Impleadment: Shri Dhullu Mahto, the person at the center of all allegations, was not made a party to the present PIL, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. Ongoing Investigations: The ED has already registered an ECIR based on seven FIRs, and the ITD is conducting reassessment proceedings. Therefore, forming an SIT or court monitoring was unwarranted.

Court's Rationale and Precedents

The High Court meticulously analyzed the history of the litigation and the established principles of PIL jurisprudence. The bench relied on landmark Supreme Court judgments, including Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. and State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal , to emphasize that PILs must be bona fide and aimed at redressing genuine public harm, not for personal gain, private motives, or oblique considerations.

The Court observed that entertaining the current PIL would be tantamount to reviewing its own 2016 order, which had held that the matter did not involve public interest.

The judgment noted, "This Court, therefore, is of the view that once this Court has expressed its view holding the nature of allegation as has been made against Shri Dhullu Mahto as not the Public Interest Litigation, hence, if that order has been referred to raise the issue of maintainability of the present writ petition, then such issue cannot be said to be baseless."

The bench further stated:

"This Court is further of the view that if the present writ petition will be entertained, then the same will amount to reviewing the observation already made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the order dated 30.03.2016 passed in W.P.(PIL) No.6438 of 2011 against which the civil miscellaneous petition was also dismissed."

Final Decision and Direction

Based on these grounds, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as non-maintainable.

However, before parting with the order, the Court took cognizance of the ongoing investigations by the ED and the Income Tax Department. It issued a directive to the agencies, stating, "it is expected that said investigation/proceedings will be concluded in order to give logical end without any delay."