STATE OF JHARKHAND versus SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA AND ORS.

Citation: [2022] 18 S.C.R. 1144 · Decided: 07-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
   [2022] 18 S.C.R. 1144
1144
STATE OF JHARKHAND
v.
SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8233-34 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 07, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI, S. R. BHAT AND
SUDHANSHU DHULIA JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art. 32 – Public Interest Litigation –
Misuse of PIL – Maintainability of PIL – Two writ petitions as Public
Interest Litigations filed before the High Court by respondent No.
1, seeking direction to the Directorate General, Investigation Income
Tax to enquire into the money transferred by the Chief Minister of
Jharkhand’s Family in the name of private respondents through the
shell companies and to investigate the source of income of private
respondents and investigate financial crime committed by the Chief
Minister – In second one, direction sought to prosecute the Chief
Minister for misusing his office in getting a mining lease in his own
name – High Court holding the PIL maintainable and deciding to
proceed on its merits – Held: Allegations which had been made of
money laundering and money being invested in shell companies
are mere allegations – Prayer to Investigation Agencies without
substantiating allegation to investigate, is abuse of process of court
–Moreover, the locus of the petitioner is questionable and has not
approached the Court with clean hands - No effort has been made
by the respondent to approach the statutory authorities whereas
the fundamental requirement for the issuance of a writ of mandamus
is that the petitioner must have sought such a relief before the
appropriate authority and only when it is denied the Court can be
approached for a writ a mandamus – Non-disclosure of the
credentials of the petitioner and the past efforts made for similar
reliefs as it has been mandated under the PIL Rules 2010 discredits
these petitions – There is no finding of the High Court that any
further delay in this matter would have made the petition infructuous
or redundant, which may have justified the relaxation of the Rules
4, 4A, 4B, 5 but to the contrary – High Court held that Rules 4, 4A,
4B and 5 are not mandatory but directory in nature in view of Rule
6-A – Thus, even though the Rules have not been followed that
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1145
really will not come in the way of the Court to entertain a PIL, since
the nature of allegations in the PIL was of a serious nature –
Allegations made by the respondents are vague, generalized and
not substantiated to be called an evidence –On generalized
averments which are nothing but mere allegations at this stage, the
Court cannot become a forum to investigate the alleged acts of
misdeeds against high constitutional authorities – It was not proper
for the High Court to entertain a PIL –Thus, the order passed by
the High Court set aside – Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest
Litigation) Rules, 2010 – rr 4, 4-A, 4-B, 5.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The first Writ Petition No. (PIL) 4290 of 2021
the allegations which had been made of money laundering and
money being invested in shell companies are again mere
allegations. The petitioner has actually sought an investigation
by the Court. It prays for a writ of mandamus in this regard to the
Investigating Agencies such as CBI or Enforcement Directorate
to investigate. This is again an abuse of the process of the Court,
as the petition is short of wild and sweeping allegations, there is
nothing placed before the Court which in any way may be called
to be prima facie evidence. Moreover, the locus of the petitioner
is questionable and the clear fact that he has not approached the
Court with clean hands makes it a case which was liable to be
dismissed at the very threshold. [Para 8][1157-F-G; 1158-A-B]
1.2 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. 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 is totally an abuse of the process of this Court.
[Para 7][1156-E-G]
1.3 In the instant case no such effort has been made by the
respondent (i.e., the petitioner in the PIL) to approach the
STATE OF JHARKHAND v. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA
AND ORS.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.