Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Kumar Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief ... on 27 December, 2023
Author: Sanjaya Kumar Mishra
Bench: Chief Justice, Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (PIL) No. 2045 of 2022
Sunil Kumar Mahto, aged about 40 years, Son of L.C. Mahto, Resident
of Katari Bagan, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, District - Ranchi.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. and P.S.- Dhurwa, District -
Ranchi.
2. The Home Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building,
P.O. and P.S.- Dhurwa, District - Ranchi.
3. The Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand,
Nepal House, P.O. and P.S.- Doranda, District - Ranchi.
4. The Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of
Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. and P.S.- Doranda, District - Ranchi.
5. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Plot no.5B, 10th Floor,
B Wing, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, P.O. and P.S.-
Lodhi Road, District - New Delhi (PIN - 110003).
6. The Director, Enforcement Directorate, 6th Floor, Lok Nayak
Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi, P.O. and P.S.- Khan Market,
District - New Delhi (PIN-110003).
7. Hemant Soren, Son of Shri Shibu Soren, The Minister, Department
of Mines and Geology and Department of Industries, Government of
Jharkhand, Resident of Kanke Road, P.O.- Ranchi University, P.S.-
Gonda, District - Ranchi.
8. M/s Sohrai Livestock Farms Private Limited, through its Director
Kalpana Soren @ Kalpana Murmu Soren, Wife of Hemant Soren,
Resident of Kanke Road, P.O.- Ranchi University, P.S.- Gonda,
District - Ranchi.
9. M/s Shiv Shakti Enterprises through its Proprietor Abhishek Prasad
@ Pintu, Press Advisor to the Chief Minister, Resident of Kanke
Road, P.O. - Ranchi University, P.S.- Gonda, District - Ranchi.
10. M/s Mahakaal Stone Works through its Proprietor Pankaj Mishra,
Vidhayak Pratinidhi of Hemant Soren, Resident of SDO Kothi,
Sakrugarh, P.O., P.S. and District - Sahebganj.
11. Kalpana Soren @ Kalpana Murmu Soren, Wife of Hemant Soren,
Resident of Kanke Road, P.O.- Ranchi University, P.S.- Gonda,
District - Ranchi.
12. Abhishek Prasad @ Pintu, Press Advisor to the Chief Minister, S/o
Late Tripurari Prasad, Resident of Kanke Road, P.O.- Ranchi
University, P.S.- Gonda, District - Ranchi.
13. Pankaj Mishra, Son of Shri Laxmikant Mishra, Vidhayak Pratinidhi of
Hemant Soren, Resident of SDO Kothi, Sakrugarh, P.O., P.S. and
District - Sahebganj.
2
14. Sarala Murmu, Father's name not known, Sister-in-law of Hemant
Soren, Resident of Kanke Road, P.O.- Ranchi University, P.S.-
Gonda, District - Ranchi.
15. Office of the Hon'ble Governor through The Principal Secretary to
the Hon'ble Governor, Raj Bhawan, Ranchi, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S.-
Kotwali, District - Ranchi.
... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
---------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Vikalp Gupta, Advocate
For the State-Resps: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General
Mr. Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G.
For the ED: Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
---------
Reserved on: 29.11.2023 Pronounced on:27.12.2023
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court
passed the following, (Per, Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
ORDER
1) By filing this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has prayed
for the following reliefs:-
a. For directing the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to give details of all
the leases of the Industrial lands granted by the Department
of Industries/JIADA including the one granted in favour of
Sohrai Livestock Private Limited, a Company of Kalpana
Murmu @ Kalpana Murmu Soren, Wife of the respondent no.
7 at Barhe Industrial Area at Chanho Block in the district of
Ranchi, and all such mining leases granted by them in favour
of the respondent no. 7 to 14 or their relatives including the
mining lease granted by them in favour of the respondent no.
7 at Mauza - Angara, thana no.26, Khata no. 187, Plot no.
482, in the district of Ranchi. The mining lease grnated in
favour of the respondent no.9 over Mauza - Pakariya, Khata
no. 13, 01, 25, 32, 16, 31, 45, Khesra no.- 254 to 256, 258 to
260, 261 and 262(P) in the District of Sahebgnaj and the
mining lease granted in favour of the respondent no. 10 in
Mauza - Gilamari, Daag no. 182(P), Village - Gilamari, P.S.
- Mirzachowki in the District of Sahebganj and pass
appropriate orders and directions commanding upon the
respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 to immediately cancel the same
and also pass appropriate directions to the respondent no. 15
to grant Sanction of Prosecution to prosecute the respondent
no. 7 for his act of Misuse of Office and getting the mining
lease approved in his own name and in the name of his
personal staffs and relatives making himself and the
respondent no. 8 to 14 liable to be prosecuted under the
provisions of Section 7, 7A and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 including Section 165, 165A, 166A, 168
and Section 169 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
b. For directing an independent enquiry/investigation either by
a Judicial Commission or through an specialized agency like
the Central Bureau of Investigation or Enforcement
Directorate into the matters of the unlawful business
activities and illegal financial resources of M/s Sohrai
Livestock Farms Private Limited, a Company of Kalpana
Murmu @ Kalpana Soren, wife and Sarla Murmu, Sister-in-
law of the respondent No.7, M/s Shiv Shakti Enterprises, a
Firm of Abhishek Prasad @ Pintu, the official Press Advisor
of the respondent no. 7 (Holding the rank of Secretary to the
Government and M/s Mahakal Stone Works, a Firm of Pankaj
Mishra, Vidhayak Pratinidhi of respondent no. 7 and likewise
all other Companies/Firms owned or promoted by the
respondent nos. 7 to 14 or their relatives/kiths and kins
including in the matter of grant of all industrial/mining leases
granted by the Department of Industries and Department of
Mines and Geology in favour of the aforesaid respondents or
their Firms or their Companies during the tenure of the
respondent no. 7 as Chief Minister as well as the
Departmental Minister of the Department of Mines and
Geology and Department of Industries, Government of
Jharkhand and the petitioner also prays for a direction upon
the respondent no. 5 and 6 to investigate upon the matters of
criminality and money laundering taken place and involved in
the mining and other businesses being done by the said
persons or their firms or their close relatives.
AND/OR
c. For any other relief/reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.
AND/OR
For directions upon the respondent no.1, through the Chief
Secretary to immediately summon and take custody of the
entire files related to the above concerned leases granted in
favour of respondent nos. 7 to 14 so that the same may not be
manipulated during the pendency of this case."
2) In compliance of Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation)
Rules, 2010, the petitioner at paragraph 3 of this writ petition has
averred that he is an Advocate practicing in the Jharkhand High Court
and a public spirited person. He further claims himself to be vigilant and
active so as to ensure that public offices of the State may function free
of any corruption. The petitioner allegedly has been helping to
aggrieved and needy persons to get right to justice. He also states that
he has been awarded with RTI fellowship-2016 by the Central
Government and he has also been awarded with NDTV National RTI
Award in the year 2009; he was featured in the front page of New York
Times in the year 2009 and two episodes based on the activities of the
petitioner were telecast by the DD News. He has been associated with
several National and International Organizations and Nine-member
delegates of Indonesia and China had visited the RTI Helpline Centre
run by the petitioner in Banta-Hazam, Silli in Ranchi District. He has
annexed the photocopies of letter of fellowship, newspaper clippings
and photocopy of Voter Id. Card, as Annexure 3, 3/1 and 3/2 to the writ
petition. Rest of the averments regarding credentials are not supported
by any documentary proof.
3) The primary grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent
No.7, i.e., the Chief Minister of Jharkhand, has indulged himself in
several corrupt activities and got mining leases in his name, in the
name of his wife's organization and in the name of his wife.
4) On 28.04.2023, a supplementary affidavit has been filed wherein
the petitioner sought to bring certain additional documents like some
letters issued by the Jharkhand Audhyogic Chetra Vikas Pradhika
(Ranchi Prachetra).
5) On 11.05.2023, the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit
stating therein that he had made representation before the respondent
No.15 on 19.01.2002 and thereafter filed RTI application seeking
information regarding action taken on the representation. The Public
Information Officer vide letter dated 02.05.2022 has provided an
information that the representation was sent to the Cell of Chief
Secretary, Jharkhand for proper action, however, no action has been
taken by the Chief Secretary.
6) The petitioner also wrote letter to the President of India, the
Prime Minister of India and the Home Minister of India. The CPIO of the
President's Secretariat has provided information vide letter dated
02.05.2022 that the matter was sent to the Home Secretary,
Department of Home on 29.04.2022. The Under Secretary of the
Government of India & CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs has informed
vide letter dated 09.05.2022 that the matter is related to the Ministry of
Mines and hence, it was transferred to them. The Under Secretary of
Government of India & CPIO, Ministry of Mines on 18.05.2022 informed
that the matter relates to the State Government. He alleges that the
authorities and respondents are shifting liabilities on each other and not
taking any action in the matter of corruption by persons sitting in higher
posts.
7) It may be stated here that respondent No.15 is the Principal
Secretary of the Hon'ble Governor Jharkhand.
8) The Special Secretary, Mines and Geology, Government of
Jharkhand, Ranchi has filed a short counter affidavit denying the
complains made therein and stating therein that there has been
suppression of fact by the petitioner. He has also relied upon the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Jharkhand Vs. Shiv Shankar Sharma and Others, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1541, wherein at following paragraphs, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under:-
"4. Two public interest litigations petitions were filed before the
Jharkhand High Court by the same person, i.e., Sri Shiv Shankar
Sharma. In the first Writ Petition (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021 the
following relief was sought:--
"A. For the direction upon the respondents specially
respondent's especially respondent no. 3 to enquire into
the money transferred of Soren Family in the name of
respondent no.'s, 8 to 13 and may also submit the report
to Income Tax Department as to how the companies which
are 28 in numbers have been used as a parking place for
ill gotten money.
B. For the direction upon the respondent no. 3 to
investigate the sources of income of respondent no. 8 to 13
as because they being the close friends of Hemant Soren
and Basant Soren have invested the money in number of
companies as chain of hotels as it is shown that the owner
is Ranjan Sahu and the Hotlips chain of hotels and
restaurants which was situated in a small area near the
Chief Minister's residents and later on removed have
transformed into six hotel chains situated at Kanke Road,
Ratan Lal Complex, Ratu Road, Lalpur, Hinoo and
Kamre.
C. For the direction upon the respondent no. 4 also to
investigate the financial crime committed by Hemant
Soren which income has given to Ravi Kejriwal as he is
connected to him since childhood and also having close
connection with Ranjan Sahu, the so called owner of
Hotlips Chain of hotels and restaurants and may also
investigate as at which point of time and place Mr.
Hemant Soren has committed illegality and earned crores
of rupees and invested in the name of these persons.
D. For the direction upon the respondent no. 5 to
investigate the money trail of crime proceed lying with
respondent no. 8 to 13 and they have amassed the huge
wealth and returning the money at the time of election to
Jharkhand Mukti Morcha headed by Hemant Soren.
E. For any other of the relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts of
this case."
5. In the Second Writ Petition (PIL) No. 727 of 2022 the
following relief was sought:--
"A. For the direction upon the respondent No. 9 to grant
sanction for prosecution, to prosecute the "The Chief
Minister Cum, Minister Department of Mines, for act of
misuse of office and getting the Mining Lease done in his
own name, although, he being a Departmental
Minister/Chief Minister cannot do business (Article 191
(9) of Constitution) of mining, and also committed
criminal act, so he is liable to be prosecuted under Section
7(A) and 13(I)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 &
Section 169 of IPC, and also to cancel his membership of
assembly of Jharkhand, and also he has violated section 9
of the Peoples' Representation Act, 1950 & lastly, he has
contravened the code of conduct framed by Union
Government for the Hon'ble Chief Minister & Ministers of
States.
B. For the direction upon the respondents especially
respondent No. 1, the Chief Secretary, Jharkhand to
protect the relevant file of Department of Mines wherein,
the mining lease of Angadha Mauza, Thana No. 26, Khata
No. 187, Plot No. 482, Area 0.88 Acre for that Letter of
intent (LOI) was issued on 16.06.21, approval of mining
plan was given on 10.07.21, mining plan approved on
09.09.21 & finally on 09.09.21 the respondent No. 7 has
given application, which was approved in its 90 meeting
dated 14-18 September, 2021, within such a short time
although, the SEIAA has given environmental clearance to
new High Court building after so many months, ANDA,
directions may be issued to Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) & Enforcement Directorate to
investigate the crime committed by respondent no. 7 & 8.
C. For the direction upon the respondent CBI especially
also to investigate the history illegal mining committed by
the person like the respondent No. 7 and due to his
influence, illegal mining is done to public properties sold
by Mr. Soren against the provisions of law to himself only.
D. For any other of the relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts of
this case."
9) In the said short counter affidavit, reliance has been placed on
paragraphs 10 and 11 of the reported judgment to demonstrate how the
writ application is an abuse of process of law.
10) A rejoinder affidavit has been filed.
11) Two additional supplementary affidavits have been filed on
13.07.2023 and 09.10.2023. In the supplementary affidavit dated
13.07.2023, the petitioner is making certain allegations regarding
allotment of industrial land in the Industrial Area in favour of the
respondents and in the 2nd supplementary affidavit dated 09.10.2023,
the petitioner has tried to distinguish the two writ petitions, especially
with regard to the prayers made therein regarding investigation, etc.
12) In sum and substance, the petitioner claims that the Chief Minster
has allegedly adopted illegal and corrupt practices to get certain mining
lease in his favour and in favour of certain firms which are being
operated in the name of his wife and he prays that the writ application
should be allowed and Central Bureau of Investigation should be
directed to take up the investigation.
13) On the other hand, learned Advocate General appearing for the
State, would submit that the petitioner does not have appropriate
credentials in terms of relevant Rules, i.e., the Jharkhand High Court
(Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010. He would further submit that a
similar matter was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Shiv Shankar Sharma (supra) and,
therefore, this writ application should be dismissed as not maintainable.
While dealing with the matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Shiv Shankar Sharma
(supra) at paragraph 10 has held as under:-
"10. The second Writ Petition (PIL) No. 727 of 2022 is the one
where a direction has been sought to prosecute the Chief
Minister, who is also the Minister in the Department of Mines.
The reason being that he has misused his office in getting a
mining lease in his own name. As far as the second writ petition
is concerned, a reply has been filed by the State of Jharkhand
before the Jharkhand High Court as well as by the Chief
Minister, Mr. Hemant Soren that full facts of the case have not
been stated by the petitioner in the petition and he has
deliberately suppressed the material facts. The mining lease
which is alleged to have been made in favour of the Chief
Minister is on a land situated in Angadha Mauza, Thana No. 26,
Khata No. 187, Plot No. 482 and the total Area of the land is
only 0.88 Acres. It was allotted to Mr. Hemant Soren for a period
of 10 years between 17.05.2008 to 17.05.2018 after the expiry of
the lease period of 10 years an application for its renewal was
made belatedly by Mr. Hemant Soren on 06.06.2018 and by that
time the lease had lapsed. Subsequently by way of Gazette
Notification No. 1 of 2021 which was issued on 27.03.2021, fresh
applications for the mining lease were invited. A letter of intent
was given in favour of Mr. Hemant Soren on 16.06.2021. All the
same on 04.02.2022 the respondent No. 7, i.e., Mr. Hemant
Soren wrote to District Mining Officer, Ranchi for surrendering
mining lease with immediate effect. As per Section 26 of
Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 a demand for
advance of six months of royalty to be deposited by Mr. Hemant
Soren and the mining lease was surrendered and was accepted
under the Rules on 11.02.2022. Therefore, according to the
respondent at the time of filing of the second writ petition (PIL)
No. 727 of 2022, there was no mining lease in favour of
respondent No. 7 as it had already stood surrendered. In its reply
dated 05.05.2022, the State of Jharkhand has also stated that
although the lease was renewed in favour of the Mr. Hemant
Soren no mining activity or extraction of stone took place on the
mining lease area. Further, in this regard if any anomaly has
been committed and respondent No. 7 has to suffer a
disqualification from his office, for having a mining lease in his
favour, the matter in this regard is pending inquiry before the
Election Commission of India in a Reference case No. 3(G) of
2022 which is registered on the reference received from the
Hon'ble Governor of Jharkhand under Article 192 of the
Constitution of India. The Election Commission of India has
issued a notice to the Chief Secretary on 08.04.2022 seeking
certain information which had been duly supplied by the State
vide its letter dated 26.04.2022. In other words, this matter as
regarding the mining lease in favour of the Chief Minister, i.e.,
Mr. Hemant Soren and his disqualification from office, is
pending consideration with the Election Commission of India. So
much for the second writ petition which in our view is totally an
abuse of the process of this Court."
14) A conjoint reading of the reported judgment and the facts of the
present case reveal that the main allegation by the petitioner against
respondent No.7 is regarding the illegal mining lease that has been
allegedly issued in his favour. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
considered the fact that the Election Commission of India has issued
notice to the Chief Secretary seeking certain information which has
been supplied and the matter regarding mining lease in faovur of the
Chief Minister and his disqualification is pending consideration before
the Election Commission of India. Thus, it is apparent that this question
was considered by the Election Commission of India. None of the
parties could inform the Court about the final decision of he aforesaid
proceedings. So, the matter relating to illegal grant of mining lease in
favour of respondent No.7 is already pending either before the Election
Commission of India or the concerned authority and for that, once the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has not exercised its discretion to direct
investigation in the name of respondent No.7, it shall be in the teeth of
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to pass any further
order in favour of the petitioner.
15) The other allegation is regarding certain financial irregularities
with respect to M/s. Sohrai Livestock Farms Private Limited, M/s. Shiv
Shakti Enterprises, etc. In the case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Shiv
Shankar Sharma (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
before seeking any redressal through a Public Interest Litigation in the
High Court, the petitioner should approach the concerned authorities
regarding the allegations that he is making. Only when the authorities
do not take any action, the petition should be filed and should be
entertained. Annexure 2 is the only representation made by the
petitioner and it is regarding the self same allegation of grant of mining
lease in favour of respondent No.7 with respect of stone quarry (pathar
khadan), etc. Thus, it is clear from the record that the petitioner has not
approached the authorities prior to filing the writ application regarding
any allegation or grievances with respect to the 2nd prayer made in the
instant Public Interest Litigation. Thus, it is our considered view that if
we allow the writ application and direct investigation of the case against
respondent No.7 and others, then it will be in the teeth of the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Jharkhand Vs. Shiv Shankar Sharma (supra). In that view of the
matter, we are of further the opinion that no direction can be given with
respect to the prayers made by the petitioner in this case and the writ
petition is, thus, dismissed.
16) There shall be no orders as to costs.
17) Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
18) Urgent Certified copies as per Rules.
(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)
Ananda Sen, J. I agree.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
N.A.F.R./Manoj
