New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday disposed of the petition moved by Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) chief and Rajya Sabha MP Shibu Soren against the proceedings of Lokpal in the Disproportionate Property (DA) Case, but the court refused to interfere with the proceedings of Lokpal. Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of the petition of Shibu Soren without making any observation about the merit of the case.
This Court does not want to enter into this realm at this juncture and it is for the Lokpal to take a decision as to whether there is sufficient material to proceed further for investigation or not in order to subserve the purpose for which the Act has been brought out," Justice Prasad said in the judgement on Monday.
The High Court rejected the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the entire complaint is completely motivated and Lokpal's invariably ordered investigation cannot be accepted. "The Office of Lokpal is completely independent and an argument that the Lokpal would be influenced by political consideration cannot be countenanced.
This allegation that the proceedings before the Lokpal are vitiated and can be politically motivated cannot be accepted," Justice Prasad said. The High Court held, "The Lokpal will examine the entire matter independently and shall take a decision as to whether an investigation has to be ordered or not, which order is always amenable for challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The CBI has submitted a preliminary inquiry and the Lokpal has to take a decision as to whether to proceed further in the case or not." The High Court also said that the Lokpal has yet to apply its mind to the material provided by the CBI as to whether an investigation is necessary or not. "It is well settled that while conducting an inquiry, the material that can be unearthed is limited compared to the material that is unearthed when an investigation is conducted by a competent authority," Justice Prasad said.
JMM Chief and Rajya Sabha MP Shibu Soren approached the High Court to quash the complaint pending before Lokpal of India. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing orders of 05.8.2020, 15.09.2020 and 04.08.2022 passed by Lokpal in the said complaint. BJP MP Nishikant Dubey had filed a complaint, which was registered with Lokpal.
It is alleged in the said complaint that the Petitioner in his name and in the name of his family members, including sons, daughters, daughters-in-law, friends, associates, various companies, etc. has acquired several immoveable properties, including plots of lands (residential, commercial and built-up properties) in various districts of Jharkhand, such as Ranchi, Dhanbad, Dumka etc.
It is also alleged that the petitioner and his family members, including his son, have invested in various companies owned by Amit Agarwal and his family members. It is stated that the said Amit Agarwal is a very close friend of the petitioner's family. The complaint stated that all the companies owned by Amit Agarwal, despite having shown consistent losses in their books of accounts, have been purchasing large properties in and around Ranchi and Kolkata.
It is stated that the petitioner has acquired properties completely disproportionate to his known sources of income. It is also stated in the complaint that the petitioner has been indulging in corrupt practices for many years and has illegally usurped huge portions of the lands belonging to poor tribals of the Santhal tribe at throwaway prices much below the prevailing circle rates.
Lokpal had passed an order under Section 20(1) (a) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct a preliminary inquiry against the petitioner to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter.
On July 1, 2021, comments were sought from the Petitioner Soren, as required under Section 20(2) of the Act, on the nature of the acquisition, cost of construction and source of funds for the 82 properties annexed to the said notice on or before July 15, 2021. A reply was given by the petitioner on July 10, 2021, informing that he was not the owner of the said properties. The petitioner sought an additional 60 days to submit his comments.
