The Kolkata Police Sunday (July 31) arrested a lawyer, Rajeev Kumar, who had recently filed three PILs in the Jharkhand High Court, two of them directed at CM Hemant Soren. The third alleged financial irregularities in the MGNREGA scheme. These PILs, filed on behalf of two separate petitioners, are being heard by a bench of Chief Justice Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad. What are the three PILs before the High Court? One of them, filed on behalf of petitioner Arun Kumar Dubey, deals with alleged financial irregularities in the MGNREGA scheme in 2010. The Enforcement Directorate has arrested Jharkhand Mining Secretary Pooja Singhal and Soren’s aide Pankaj Mishra in the case. The other two have been filed on behalf of petitioner Shiv Kumar Sharma. Out of these, one alleges money laundering by CM Soren and his family through shell companies. The other one points out how Hemant Soren granted himself a mining lease while holding the Mining portfolio. In all three cases Advocate Rajeev Kumar is the lawyer. What are the basic prayers in the three pleas? In the shell companies' PIL, the petitioner has sought that the ED, the CBI and the Income Tax department should probe the matter. In the mining lease PIL, the petition seeks action against CM and Mining Minister Hemant Soren for alleged misuse of public office in order to grant mining lease in his own name. While ED is already investigating the alleged 2010 MGNREGA scam, the PIL by petitioner Arun Kumar Dubey has sought ED probe pointing out that there has been no action by the state against IAS officer Pooja Singhal, who was the DC when the alleged scam took place in 2010, despite 16 FIRs against her. Why is the High Court hearing all three PILs together? Advocate Rajeev Kumar had earlier told The Indian Express that all three petitions are linked. During the course of the hearing, ED said that during its search operations it found material that has “startling revelations” and shows alleged involvement of “higher ups”. Appearing for the ED, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted that while investigating the MGNREGA scam alleged involvement of Pooja Singhal, Secretary Mines, State of Jharkhand was found. He added that her involvement was found even in the material allotment of lease in favour of Hemant Soren (PIL 727/2022). As per the court records, Mehta submitted that the role of some of the companies mentioned in shell companies PIL, has also emerged during the ED investigation. He further told the court that the “grant of various leases, in the present context, are inter-linked with the shell companies which are being investigated for the purpose of laundering of ill-gotten money”. For the other side, Mukul Rohatgi objected to the clubbed hearing, saying that it would make the case ‘jumbled up’. What are the specific allegations in the shell companies PIL? In the High Court order of June 3, a bench of Chief Justice Ravi Ranjan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad reproduced a portion of the petition. The plea alleged that the money earned through illegal means has been invested in the (shell) companies and the incumbent Chief Minister of Jharkhand has certain persons who work for him as investment agents in businesses like mining, liquor and real estate. As per the court records, the petition stated that the money trail is “quite clear” and the “modus is quite simple because Hemant Soren and Basant Soren are getting a major share of profit from these firms and these persons have amassed not less than hundreds of crores out of this”. What have been the state’s submissions so far? On the shell companies PIL, the state has prayed to dismiss the petition as non-maintainable and asked for a direction for the ED’s sealed cover report to be returned. Appearing for the state, Kapil Sibal had called for junking the PIL as it was not “a case where the investigation is to be transferred to the special agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation, since there is no FIR”. About petitioner Shiv Shankar Sharma, the state had submitted that he is masquerading as a genuine litigant, while actually acting as a front for political parties. The state has further argued that the petitioner has not approached any authority with his purported grievances before approaching this court and thereby, he is misusing the judicial process. In his response in the mining PIL, CM Hemant Soren has said: “.the petitioner Shiv Shankar Sharma and his family harboured ‘personal enmity’ towards his family for more than two decades and his petition was devoid of any public interest. The petitioner’s father Dr Gautam Sharma had testified as a witness for the prosecution in a case seeking to falsely implicate my father Shibu Soren. My father’s conviction was reversed…The grudge which Sharma held against my father is being pursued by his son who is the petitioner. I say that the present petition is filed solely out of personal enmity…to settle personal scores and for oblique motives at the instance of my political rivals and not with any public interest at heart.” The state also approached the Supreme Court after which it was ordered that the High Court should first hear the maintainability of the case. The Jharkhand High Court later ruled that the two petitions - on shell companies and the one on mining lease - were maintainable. What were HC's observations while declaring the two pleas maintainable? In the order, the court said that its conscience has been shocked to notice the fact that a senior IAS officer has been arrested by ED and huge money has been recovered from her residence. The court said that even as IAS Pooja Singal was put behind bars, she has not been implicated by the district police in the criminal case registered for alleged embezzlement of MGNREGA funds while being District Programme Coordinator of MGNREGA-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Khunti. The court then said that the subject matter of writ petition involves “issue of siphoning of huge public money, having public interest at large, therefore, this court deems it fit and proper not to throw the writ petition on that ground”.
