38.6c New Delhi, India, Monday, March 04, 2024

SC to consider State of Jharkhand’s plea apprehending move by Jharkhand HC to order CBI enquiry against Chief Minister Hemant Soren

By Lawstreet News Network      May 24, 2022      0 Comments
Supreme Court Jharkhand HC CBI Chief Minister Hemant Soren

Supreme Court to consider State of Jharkhand’s plea apprehending move by Jharkhand HC to order CBI enquiry against Chief Minister Hemant Soren relying upon "sealed cover" documents submitted by Enforcement Directorate in relation to grant of mining leases.

Sibal for the State: PIL is filed & comes up on April 22. The petitioner's father gave evidence in the murder matter. Court decided in favour of Mr Soren. He has been filing various PIL.

Sibal: HC has framed rules and these are 2010 rules. Please see para 4.

Sibal reads the rules wherein it has been stated that "every PIL will chronologically mention the earlier results & efforts which are in petitioner's knowledge."

He further reads rule 5 of the Rules.

Sibal further reads the Rules: None of this is done.

"PIL shall first be listed for app notes for app orders before the DB....," Sibal further submits while reading the rules.

Sibal: None of this is followed. Kindly come to what happens on April 22. Your lordships will find that.

Page 187 of the main paper book.

Sibal reads, "Let the ROC, Ministry of Corp Affairs  be impleaded as parties": No application was filed and he was impleaded suo Moto. Even the ASG waived notice.

"Another petition is filed by the same counsel which was not disclosed," Sibal further submits.

Sibal: The advocate is Rajiv Kumar & he is the same counsel in the PIL. None of this is disclosed. This is that earlier petition which was dismissed right up to the SC.

DYC J: But Mr Sibal the court has said that they are keeping the same open regarding the maintainability of the plea

Sibal: More strange things have happened. Kindly see the order of May 13, 2022.

Sibal reads order dated May 13, 2022: ED has conducted operation where material collected have made certain startling revelations... (Sibal reads the order)

16 FIR's are filed. These matters are brought to the court in the sealed cover.

DYC J: HC said in the order dated May 13 that it would decide the matter of maintainability of the plea. On May 17 they did not consider it. Subject to hearing the SG, what we can do is, we'll ask the HC to consider the maintainability of the plea first.

Sibal: Can some extraneous matter in another matter be brought in a sealed cover..

In the other matter the prayer is for conducting CBI investigation

How can that material be brought in these proceedings?

DYC J: HC is seized of the matter. What we propose to do is, the HC has said that it would consider the maintainability of the matter.

Sibal: there is a judgement there which says that the court cannot transfer the matter to CBI unless there is no FIR & here there's no FIR.

DYC J: What we'll say is ask the HC to consider the maintainability first. Instead of us going into it...

Allegation is about the transfer of funds through shell companies & the raid which was conducted by Secretary, Mines.

Sr Adv Rohatgi for the CM: I request your lordships to hear me too.

SG: There are 3 WP's & 1 affidavit which is filed by us has been suppressed. What has happened is..

SG: There are 3 WP's. 1 pertains to: kindly have a look at the prayer.

SG reads the prayer in the 1st WP: Direction upon R1 & 2 to further investigate the 15 FIR's..

SG: These are the prayers

DYC J: These pertain to the Director, Khunti

Sibal: That's when BJP was in power

SG: Im not on BJP or Congress. When my ld friends do not have merits, they resort to political allegations.

DYC J: it also reduces the tedious work for vacation benches by making political jibes

SG: My friend is right. FIR's were registered for MNREGA. In 2012, ECIR was registered by the authorities and not by an govt.

ED was investigating that PMLA scam where the lady Pooja Singhal was the main accused in the MNREGA scam where ED conducted the investigation.

SG: There is a list of 28 companies which the petitioner had provided

ED did not rush to the court.

DYC J: It appears that the order which you are relying on were passed in 4290.

Share this article:

User Avatar

Leave a feedback about this



Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email