The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(PIL) No. 4218 of 2013 Diwan Indranil Sinha ...... Petitioner -versus- State of Jharkhand and Others ...... Respondents ------ CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.N. PATEL ------ For the Petitioner: For the Respondents: Advocate General Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Adv. ------ Dated 22 nd November, 2013 This writ petition has been filed as ‘Public Interest Litigation’ to direct Income Tax Department i.e. respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to thoroughly investigate the illegal assets/wealth amassed by respondent Nos. 9 to 14 at the cost of tax payers money by misusing their office and also invested the same in the name of respondent Nos. 12 to 14 and to direct respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 to submit the details of progress of the investigation and also for other directions. 2. The petitioner, who claims to be spirited person has filed this writ petition as ‘Public Interest Litigation’ stating that the respondent Nos. 9 to 14 have amassed wealth. 3. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.9 has been elected as M.L.A. for Jharkhand Assembly from Jama constituency and before 2009 she was simply a house wife and only her late husband was the M.L.A. for the same constituency.
Legal Reasoning
According to the petitioner, respondent No.9 has been elected as M.L.A. for the first time in 2009 and at the time of filing nomination for Jama Constituency, she has sworn in affidavit before Election Commissioner showing only some of the properties and even before 2009, the respondent No.9 has immovable property purchased by two sale deeds and even before 2008, she was owning various immovable 2 properties as indicated in sub-para 9 (a) to (c). That apart, respondent No.9 has got immovable property in the form of commercial as well as private vehicles which are hundreds in numbers and the details of the same, as allegedly owned by respondent No.9, are stated in para-9. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.9 possesses properties worth of 100 crores of rupees and this property has been purchased by respondent No. 11 as he has held so many posts as public servant. 4. Further case of the petitioner is that respondent No.10 has amassed various properties in the name of his wife and respondent No.10 has never held any public post and his only source of income was the income of respondent No.11. According to the petitioner, respondent No.10 has not disclosed about purchase of land in Argora P.S. at Ranchi on 9.1.2009 although he has sworn in an affidavit dated 2.1.2009 before the Election Commissioner. Respondent No.10 has also amassed landed property. The petitioner has alleged that respondent No.10 has amassed property worth Rupees 80 lacs and the actual value of 23 kathas of land is in crores of rupees and the actual source of income, as alleged, is to hold public posts as public servants by respondent No.11. 5. Petitioner has also alleged that respondent No.12 happens to be close relatives to respondent Nos.9, 10 and 11, having held no public post, are possessing property worth not less than rupees 5000 crores and is running hotels in Cannot Place, New Delhi property worth several crores. Likewise respondent No.13 was holding the post of clerk in Jharkhand Vidhansabha and due to his close proximity with respondent No.9, respondent No.13 amassed various properties as indicated in para 15 of the affidavit. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent Nos.9 to 14 have amassed various properties and respondent Nos.9 and 10 have not disclosed the property owned by t hem in the affidavit sworn in by them before Election Commissioner. 3 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the communication sent by respondent No.9 to the Income Tax Department. Learned counsel further submitted that even though the matter was seized up by the Income Tax Department, since respondent Nos.9 to 11 are very influential and no action has been taken by the Income Tax Department. 8.