The High Court · 2024
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P No. 184 of 2018 Somnath Chatterjee aged about 44 years, s/o late Vijay Shankar Chatterjee, r/o Hizna Colony, PO-Zogta, PS-Zogta, District-Dhanbad…....… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Director, Investigation, Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhawan, PO- GPO, PS-Kotwali, Main Road, District-Ranchi. 3. Additional Director (Investigation), Ayakar Bhawan, PO-GPO, PS- Kotwali, Main Road, District-Ranchi. 4. Director Enforcement Directorate, Prevention of Money Laundering, Department, Rajaji Salai, PO-GPO, PS-Gandhi Maidan, Chajju Bagh, District-Patna, Bihar. 5. Dhullu Mahto, s/o late Puna Mahto, r/o Chhitahi, PO-Tundu, PS-Tundu, District-Dhanbad 6. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, PO & PS-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi 7. The Central Bureau of Investigation, CEO Complex, PO & PS-Lodhi Road, District-New Delhi. 8. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, CEO Complex, PO & PS- Lodhi Road, District-New Delhi. 9. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Koyla Bhawan, PO-Dhanbad, PS-Seraidhela, District-Dhanbad 10. The General Manager (Sales and Marketing) Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Koyla Bhawan, PO-Dhanbad, PS-Seraidhela, District-Dhanbad ..……. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Legal Reasoning
30th March 2016 passed by this Court in W.P(PIL) No.6438 of 2011. 2. In this Civil Miscellaneous Petition, the petitioner has pleaded that a direction was issued by this Court to submit a report as regards the inquiry conducted by the statutory authorities such as the Income Tax Department. However, this direction of the Court has not been complied by them with. 3. In W.P(PIL) No.6438 of 2011, the following order was passed by this Court: 1) This Public Interest Litigation has been preferred with the following prayers: (a) For, the directions upon the respondents to enquire into the wrong statement of account of property submitted by the respondent no.10, and has amassed crores of rupees from his known sources of income either his own name or, on the name of his own close ones by misusing his office as Member of Legislative Assembly from Baghmara Assembly Constituency. (b) For, the direction upon the respondents no.5 & 7 to register a regular criminal cases against the respondent no. 10, under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as the respondent no. 10 is a public servant. (c) For, the issuance of an appropriate writ especially in the nature of mandamus upon the respondent no. 2 to collect evidences upon investigation and refer the same to the Election Commission of India, for cancellation of the membership of Jharkhand Assembly as the respondent no. 10 has committed fraud in his affidavit submitted at the time of filing of nomination. (d) For, the direction upon the respondents especially respondent no. 2 to extend protection of the life of the petitioner & his family members as the respondent no. 10 is a dreaded criminal having not less than dozen of criminal cases, and few days back he has beaten up the media person of Prabhat Khabar for publishing his misdeeds. (e) For, the direction upon the respondents to regularly apprise this Hon'ble Court. (f) For any other appropriate relief or, relief(s). 2) Having heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this is not a Public Interest Litigation at all. The petitioner is unable to point out the ownership of several properties in the name of this respondent no.10. Even otherwise also, the owners of the lands in question, which are referred in the memo of petition, can take action against respondent no.10 if they are aggrieved by the fake and fabricated sale deeds or the sale deeds have been entered into under threat or coercion. So far as other allegations are concerned, criminal proceedings are already pending looking to paragraph 11 of this writ petition. 3) It appears from the facts of the case that several details have 2 C.M.P No.184 of 2018 and batch cases
Arguments
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR For the Petitioner For the Resp. No.4-ED For the Resp. No.5 For the SBI By the Court: : Mr. Arbind Kumar Lall, Advocate : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate Miss Sonal Jaiswal, Advocate : Mr. P.A.S Pati, Advocate --------- 4th April 2024 This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 (who were arrayed as the respondent no.3, 4 and 5 in W.P (PIL) No.6438 of 2011) to submit a report with regard to the inquiry conducted by them in the light of the order dated
Decision
been given about the so-called excess income and the purchases of the property by the respondent no.10. Any excess income or excess property can be looked into by the Income Tax Department who is respondent nos.3 and 4. Thus, respondent no.3 and 4 will take all care of these allegations and also enquire into the matter and after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the respondent no.10, action under law will be taken. Similar is the case with other allegations also. In this set of circumstances, we are not inclined to give any relief to this petitioner. 4) The State shall expedite the investigation into the criminal cases and the necessary reports will be filed under the Code of Criminal Procedures, 1973. 5) Registrar General of this Court is directed to send a copy of this writ petition along with all the annexues and also along with the supplementary affidavits filed by the petitioner to the Director (Investigation), Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhawan, Main Road, Ranchi; as well as Additional Director (Investigation), Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhawan, Main Road, Ranchi. Similarly, copy of this writ petition as well as additional affidavits filed by the petitioner shall be sent to the respondent no.5. It is expected from the respondents that if any illegality is found as mentioned in the petition, action will be taken by them after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the respondent no.10 in accordance with law. 6) With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of.” 4. On a glance at the aforesaid order, this is quite clear that only respondent no.10 could have made a grievance that he was not heard by the statutory authorities; the writ petition was dismissed. This petition seems to have been filed so casually that even the provision in law under which this has been filed is not mentioned. It further appears that several adjournments were taken on behalf of the petitioner for example, on 21st February 2019, 11th April 2019, 9th May 2019 and 11th February 2020 etc. 5. Having regard to the nature of the order passed by this Court in W.P(PIL) No. 6438 of 2011, this petition seems to be a wagering attempt by the petitioner which is accordingly dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) sudhir 3 C.M.P No.184 of 2018 and batch cases