Shibu Soren Lokpal Matter: Delhi HC dismisses appeal of JMM chief, refuses to interfere with Lokpal proceedings

New Delhi [India], February 20 : The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed an appeal moved by Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) chief Shibu Soren against a single judge order who had refused to interfere with the proceedings by the Lokpal.
A division bench of Justices Rekha Palli and Rajnish Bhatnagar said, "We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order, holding that the writ petition filed by the appellant was premature. The appeal being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed."
"In fact, the Lokpal is yet to decide as to whether or not a prima facie case exists for directing investigation against the appellant by any agency including the CBI. In this factual matrix, we find no infirmity with the approach adopted by the Lokpal," the division bench said in the judgement.
On August 5, 2020, a complaint was filed with the Lokpal by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey under The Lokpal and Lokayuktas
Act, 2013.
While hearing the petition, the division bench noted that in his complaint the complainant Nishikant Dubey has not only levelled allegations against the appellant of purchasing properties in his and his family members' name by using unfair means but has also raised a grievance that the appellant and his family members were consistently misusing the funds of the public exchequer for their personal and political gains, with the assistance of one Amit Aggarwal, who was constructing a 22 storeyed building in Salt Lake, Kolkata.
It has been further alleged that the appellant was purchasing land around Ranchi through various shell companies, the High Court noted.
The division bench also referred to the Complaint filed by Dubey which submitted that Shibu Soren and his family members have been consistently misusing the funds of the public exchequer for their personal and political gain with the assistance of Amit Agarwal, who is constructing a 22-storey building in Salt Lake, Kolkata, wherein Shibu Soren and his family members have invested huge amounts of money.
It is further alleged that Shibu Soren and his family members by abusing their as public servants and by corrupt means have obtained pecuniary advantages from various persons and companies, thereby committed various persons and companies, thereby committed various criminal offences not only under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act but also under the provisions of Indian Penal Code Benami Property Act and several local land related laws including the CNT and Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act etc."
After noting the allegations levelled by the complainant, the division bench said that it is evident to us that the complaint pertains not only to the purchase of properties, which the appellant claims were purchased more than 7 years ago but also pertains to ongoing incidents of amassing wealth by misuse of power by the appellant.
"In the light of these allegations, we are unable to accept the appellant's plea that it was a fit case where the Lokpal ought to have at the very first instance rejected the complaint as being barred by limitation," the high court held.
Dubey has alleged that the appellant by abusing/misusing his official position along with his family members and in connivance with his relatives and family friends, acquired several immovable properties in various cities of the State of Jharkhand by indulging in corrupt practices.
The Lokpal on September 15, 2020, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to initiate a preliminary inquiry against Shibu Soren to ascertain whether a prima facie case for proceeding further in the matter, existed against him.
The CBI was granted six weeks' time to submit its report. This period was repeatedly extended at the request of the CBI. On July 1, 2021, the CBI submitted its findings of preliminary inquiry along with a list of 82 properties owned by the appellant and his family members.
CBI also sought comments from the appellant regarding the mode of acquisition and source of funds in respect of the aforesaid properties. He replied by stating that he was not the owner of the properties referred to by the CBI.
Earlier, a single judge bench passed a judgement on January 22, 2024 refusing to interfere with the proceedings at the Lokpal.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that the order of January 22, 2024, is liable to be set aside as the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the complaint filed by the complainant was on the face of it barred under Section 53 of the Act.
He also submitted that even to order a preliminary inquiry under 20(1)(a), which preliminary inquiry in terms of Section 2(m) is an inquiry under the Act, it is incumbent upon the Lokpal to consider whether it has the necessary jurisdiction to entertain
the complaint.
It was contended by him that it was evident from the Complaint that except for two properties, all other properties, which the appellant and his family members are alleged to have acquired by unfair means, were acquired more than seven years ago, the complaint was barred by limitation.
The two properties, which as per the complainant were acquired by the appellant and his family members in 2014, are owned by the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha as is now clear from the report dated January 6, 2021, filed by the CBI and therefore the Lokpal does not have the jurisdiction to proceed with the complaint, which is persisting to do, despite this factual position having been brought to its notice by the appellant by way of his detailed representation dated April 1, 2022.
The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and the complainant's Counsel opposed the appeal and submitted that merely because a preliminary inquiry by the CBI was ordered on 15.09.2020, does not imply that the Lokpal will not examine the objections raised by the appellant before taking a considered decision as to whether it was a fit case for directing investigation by any agency or the Delhi Special Police Establishment under Section 20 (3) of the Act.
SG Mehta also submitted that the Act is a self-contained code that entitles the Lokpal to adopt any of the three options as contained in clauses (a) to (c) of Section 20 (3).
He contended that the learned Single Judge had rightly rejected the writ petition by holding that the writ petition was premature as the Lokpal is yet to take a decision as to proceed under which of these three clauses.