The Jharkhand High Court on Wednesday heard arguments on whether or not the PIL of Shiv Shankar Sharma against some private individuals is maintainable. The court fixed June 3 to further hear this PIL 4090/2021 where the petitioner has accused the chief minister and others of using shell companies for parking their money.
The double bench of Chief Justice Dr. Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad heard the issue of maintainability on the instruction of the Supreme Court. Kapil Sibal argued on behalf of the Jharkhand Government and Hemant Soren was represented by Mukul Rohtagi.
Kapil Sibal argued that the petitioner has no fair intention behind filing a PIL against the CM. He said that he suppressed his full history, his credential, occupation, and chronology of the case. The petitioner has not come before the court with a clear mind, clear heart, and clear conscience hence the very correctness of the content is doubtful.
Sibal said that as a petitioner he should have first approached the police for investigation if he found evidence of the corruption. But he directly approached Jharkhand High Court demanding a CBI inquiry which is wrong. He said that the petitioner only made allegations without having any evidence. “He has submitted names of some companies which are available on public websites and he doubts all as shell companies. He has made passing comments that he suspects corruption. His PIL has no colour of prima facie,” Sibal said.
Sibal contended that Shiv Shankar Sharma has a personal rivalry with the chief minister and his family. He claimed that the petitioner’s father Gautam Sharma was a CBI witness against Shibu Soren in a murder case. Sibal said his father gave a false statement against Shibu Soren.
Sibal countered the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has no jurisdiction in this case as no predicate offense has taken place. He objected to the ED for filing a submission before the High Court in a sealed cover and said that the court should not rely upon that submission. Sibal said that he was just wondering if the ED investigating the MNREGA scam started an investigation of the shell company and illegal mining in Jharkhand.
Arguing on behalf of the petitioner, Rajiv Kumar said that the petitioner did not hide anything. And if he was not aware that a similar PIL of Indranil Sinha was rejected he brought this fact before the court. He informed the court that after the rejection of the PIL by the Jharkhand High Court, Indranil Sinha approached the Supreme Court which directed him to approach the competent agency for investigation with sufficient evidence. He said that Indranil Sinha approached the CBI for the probe. The CBI directed him to get the order of the competent court.
Tushar Mehta appeared on behalf of the ED. He said that the petitioner has raised a larger issue