# STATE OF JHARKHAND v. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2022] 18 S.C.R. 1144
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-11-07
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 8233-34 of 2022
- **Bench:** Uday Umesh Lalit, S. R. Bhat, Sudhanshu Dhulia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-jharkhand-v-shiv-shankar-sharma-and-ors-35788
- **Pages:** 30

## Headnote

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 w

## Text

_Characters 0–39,402 of 69,763. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39402 for what follows._

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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
statutory authorities in any manner whatsoever. 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. This principle cannot beignored merely
because this Court is dealing with a Public Interest Litigation.
With regard to the present Public Interest Litigations, it is an
admitted fact that the respondent has not taken any steps in
approaching the statutory authorities or madeanyeffortin the
registration of an FIR. [Para 10][1160-B-D]
1.4 The above Rules, 2010 were madepursuant to
thedirections of the Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh
Chaufal's case. Rules were to be framed so that it is no more left
to the individual judges to devise their own procedure, but to
ensure uniformity in entertaining a PIL, and to encourage genuine
PIL and discourage PIL which are filed with oblique motive.
Therefore, the importance of these Rules can never be
underestimated. [Para 11][1163-E-F]
1.5 What is of crucial significance in a PIL is the bona fide
of the petitioner who files the PIL. It is an extremely relevant
consideration and must beexamined by the Court at the very
threshold itself and this has to be done irrespective of the
seemingly high public cause being espoused by the petitioner in
a PIL. [Para 12][1164-A-B]
1.6 In the reply filed by the State of Jharkhand before the
High Court in W.P. No. (PIL) 4290 of 2021, an objection was
taken regarding the suppression of the earlier writ petition being
W.P. (PIL) No. 4218 of 2013 as well. Hence, it is clear that the
petitioner did not approach this Court with clean hands as he did
not disclose the dismissal of the W.P. (PIL) No. 4218 of 2013 by
the Jharkhand High Court with costs, an order which was upheld
by this Court in SLP No. 4886 of 2014 by order dated 28.02.2014.
This is alsoa clear violation of Rule, 4B of the Rules, 2010which
required the petitioner to disclose of all similar efforts made in
the past. [Para 13][1165-E-G]
1.7 No doubt the above procedure as given in Rules 4, 4A,
4B and 5 can be relaxed under Rule 6, for the reasons to be
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1147
recorded by the Court where the case calls for an urgent
intervention by the Court and it is not practicable to allow any
delay to be caused in the matter. Presently, there is no finding or
order of the Jharkhand 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. To the
contrary, the Jharkhand High Court has held that Rules 4, 4A,
4B and 5 are not mandatory but directory in nature in view of
Rule 6-A and therefore even though the Rules have not been
followed that 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. This reasoning is in teeth of the decision of this
Court in directions given by this Court in Balwant Singh Chaufal's
case, as well as a clear violation of the Jharkhand High Court
Rules, primarily Rule 4-B. [Para 14][1165-G-H; 1166-A-B]
1.8 The locus of the petitioner who initiates a PIL is
therefore of extreme importance as this important form of
litigation should not be abused by motivated individuals to abuse
the process of the Court for their political purposes or for any
other reason, but for a Public Cause. [Para 16][1169-F-G]
1.9 Petitioner in this case is admittedly the son of Dr.
Gautam Sharma who was one of the witnesses for the prosecution
in a criminal case against the fatherofthepresentChief Minister
and therefore the Chief Minister has alleged an old enmity and
personal vendetta at the hands of thepetitioner. In spite of such
objection the PIL could have been heard had the petitioner come
before the Court with clean hands. He has deliberately and wilfully
with held from the Court that an earlier writ petition (Writ Petition
No. (PIL) 4218 of 2013) was filed on similar grounds seeking
similar reliefs which was dismissed by the Jharkhand High Court
on 22.11.2013 with costs, an order which was upheld by the
Supreme Court vide order dated 28.02.2014 in SLP No. 4886 of
2014. [Para 17][1169-G-H; 1170-A-B]
1.10 Allegations which were made by the petitioner are
vague, very much generalized and not at all substantiated by
anything worthy to be called an evidence. Allegations of corruption
and siphoning of money from shell companies are nothing but a
STATE OF JHARKHAND v. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA
AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1148
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
bald allegation, without substantiating the allegations in any
manner whatsoever and is therefore only asking the Court to
direct Central Bureau of Investigation or the Directorate of
Enforcement to investigate the matter. This is nothing but an
abuse of the process of the court. The Courts cannot allow its
process to be abused for oblique purposes. [Para 18, 19][1170C-E]
1.11 Petitioner alleges that the one of the respondents who
is the present Chief Minister of Jharkhand has amassed a huge
wealth by corrupt means by abusing his position as a Chief
Minister and has invested this money in about 32 companies of
which description has been given. The petitioner then gives
details of these companies as to who are the Directors, etc. The
respondent or his relatives are not the Directors of the
Companies. But then the petitioner states that he has information
that he has been siphoning off this money and investing it in these
shell companies through one Ravi Kejriwal who is allegedly a
close associate of the Chief Minister. The allegations of the
respondent of money laundering through shell companies has
not been supplemented by any kind of evidence, whatsoever. The
names of persons who are allegedly responsible for the operation
of these companies have been mentioned, but without producing
any concrete evidence, it has been stated that these persons are
connected/close aides or related to the Chief Minister. Further,
none of the companies have been made a party to the present
PILs, before the Jharkhand High Court. Thus, an order is sought
from the High Court to direct the Enforcement Directorate to
investigate these so called "shell companies" without even
making the companies a party in the writ proceedings. It is also
an admitted fact that in relation to present two PILs, no FIR or
complaint has been filed with the police or any authority agitating
the grievances and these petitions have been filed before the
High Court, without availing the statutory remedies. [Para
20][1172-A-E]
1.12 It is not that people who occupy high offices should
not be investigated, but for a High Court to take cognizance of
the matter on these generalized submissions which do not even
make prima facie satisfaction of the Court, is nothing but an abuse
of the process of the Court. The non-disclosure of the credentials
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1149
of the petitioner and the past efforts made for similar reliefs as it
has been mandated under the Rules, 2010 further discredits these
petitions. The petitioner in the PILs did not go with clean hands
before the High Court. Such a petition was liable to be dismissed
at the very threshold itself. If the petitioner has a genuine reason
to pursue the matter, he has his remedies available under the
Companies Act or under other provisions of the law where he
can apprise the relevant authorities of the misdeeds of the
Directors or Promotors of the Companies. But 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 which is based on
mere allegations and half baked truth that too at the hands of a
person who has not been able to fully satisfy his credentials and
has come to the Court with unclean hands. The order passed by
the High Court are set aside. [Para 21][1172-F-H; 1173-A]
KungaNima Lepcha v. State of Sikkim (2010) 4 SCC
513 : [2010] 3 SCR 787; State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant
Singh Chaufal&Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 402 : [2010] 1
SCR 678; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors. (1987)
1 SCC 395 : [1987] 1 SCR819; BALCO Employees'
Union (Regd). v. Union of India & Ors. (2002) 2 SCC
333 : [2001] 5 Suppl. SCR 511; Neetu v. State of Punjab
(2007) 10 SCC 614 : [2007] 1 SCR 223; Ashok Kumar
Pandey v. State of West Bengal & Ors AIR 2004 SC 280
: [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 716; Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd.
v. Prem Chand Mishra (2007) 14 SCC 28; Janata Dal
v. H.S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305- referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2010] 3 SCR 787
referred to
Para 9
[2010] 1 SCR 678
referred to
Para 11
[1987] 1 SCR819
referred to
Para 11
[2001] 5 Suppl. SCR 511
referred to
Para 11
[2007] 1 SCR 223
referred to
Para 11
[2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 716
referred to
Para 15
STATE OF JHARKHAND v. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA
AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.82338234 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.06.2022 of the High Court
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Writ Petition (PIL) No.4290 of 2021 and Writ
Petition (PIL) No.727 of 2022]
With
Slp (C) Nos.11364-11365 of 2022.
Mukul Rohatgi, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Kapil Sibal, Rajiv Ranjan,
Arunabh Chowdhury, Sr. Advs., Dhawal Mohan, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi,
Ms. Adya Shree Dutta, Tushar Arora, Ms. Pallavi Langar, Ms. Pragya
Baghel, Jayant Mohan, Aniruddha Mahedevan Sethi, Dechen W.
Lachungpa, Ms. Anusha, Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, S. K. Abbas, Karma
Dorjee, Advs. for the Appellant.
S.V. Raju, K.M. Nataraj, ASGs, Abhinav Ramkrishna, Abhishek
Rai, Vatsal Joshi, Vinayak Sharma, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Annirudh Sharma,
Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Nakul Chengappa K.K., Mukesh Kumar Maroria,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.
Leave granted.
1.The above two petitions have been filed before this Court by
the State of Jharkhand through the Resident Commissioner, challenging
the orders dated 03.06.2022 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Jharkhand, where the High Court has ordered that the PILs
filed by respondent no.1 before the Jharkhand High Court are
maintainable, and thus the High Court decided to proceed with the matter
on its merits. The petitioner here poses a challenge to the very
maintainability of these two PILs. After hearing the parties at length,
this Court vide its order dated 17.08.2022 had reserved its orders and
directed that meanwhile the High Court shall not proceed further with
the matter.
2. The question before this Court is whether the petitions which
have been filed before the Jharkhand High Court in the form of Public
Interest Litigations are maintainable in view of the settled position of
law laid down by this Court in several of its earlier decisions. The question
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1151
is also whether these PILs comply with the provisions of the Rules relating
to the Public Interest Litigations, which is the Jharkhand High Court
(Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 (for short "Rules, 2010") and if
they do not, were the petitions filed as PILs liable to be dismissed at the
very threshold if they were not in compliance of the provisions of the
above Rules relating to PIL.
3. Two public interest litigations petitions were filed before the
Jharkhand High Court by the same person, i.e., Sri Shiv Shankar Sharma.
In the first Writ Petition (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021 the following relief was
sought: -
"A. For the direction upon the respondents specially respondent's
especially respondent no. 31 to enquire into the money transferred
of Soren Family in the name of respondent no.'s, 8 to 13 and may
also submit the report to Income Tax Department as to how the
companies which are 28 in numbers have been used as a parking
place for ill gotten money.
B. For the direction upon the respondent no. 3 to investigate the
sources of income of respondent no. 8 to 13 as because they
being the close friends of Hemant Soren and Basant Soren have
invested the money in number of companies as chain of hotels as
it is shown that the owner is Ranjan Sahu and the Hotlips chain of
hotels and restaurants which was situated in a small area near the
Chief Minister's residents and later on removed have transformed
into six hotel chains situated at Kanke Road, Ratan Lal Complex,
Ratu Road, Lalpur, Hinoo and Kamre.
C. For the direction upon the respondent no. 42 also to investigate
the financial crime committed by Hemant Soren which income
has given to Ravi Kejriwal as he is connected to him since
childhood and also having close connection with Ranjan Sahu, the
so called owner of Hotlips Chain of hotels and restaurants and
may also investigate as at which point of time and place Mr. Hemant
Soren has committed illegality and earned crores of rupees and
invested in the name of these persons.
D. For the direction upon the respondent no. 5 to investigate the
money trail of crime proceed lying with respondent no. 8 to 13
1 Respondent No.3 is the Central Bureau of Investigation.
2 Respondent No.4 is the Enforcement Directorate.
STATE OF JHARKHAND v. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA
AND ORS. [SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
and they have amassed the huge wealth and returning the money
at the time of election to Jharkhand Mukti Morcha headed by
Hemant Soren.
E. For any other of the relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the light of the facts of this case."
In the Second Writ Petition (PIL) No. 727 of 2022 the following
relief was sought: -
 "A. For the direction upon the respondent No.9 to grant sanction
for prosecution, to prosecute the "The Chief Minister Cum, Minister
Department of Mines, for act of misuse of office and getting the
Mining Lease done in his own name, although, he being a
Departmental Minister/Chief Minister cannot do business (Article
191(9) of Constitution) of mining, and also committed criminal
act, so he is liable to be prosecuted under Section 7(A) and 13(I)(d)
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & Section 169 of IPC, and
also to cancel his membership of assembly of Jharkhand, and also
he has violated section 9 of the Peoples' Representation Act, 1950
& lastly, he has contravened the code of conduct framed by Union
Government for the Hon'ble Chief Minister & Ministers of States.
B. For the direction upon the respondents especially respondent
No. 1, the Chief Secretary, Jharkhand to protect the relevant file
of Department of Mines wherein, the mining lease of Angadha
Mauza, Thana No. 26, Khata No. 187, Plot No. 482, Area 0.88
Acre for that Letter of intent (LOI) was issued on 16.06.21,
approval of mining plan was given on 10.07.21, mining plan approved
on 09.09.21 & finally on 09.09.21 the respondent No. 7 has given
application, which was approved in its 90th meeting dated 14-18
September, 2021, within such a short time although, the SEIAA
has given environmental clearance to new High Court building
after so many months, ANDA, directions may be issued to Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI) & Enforcement Directorate to
investigate the crime committed by respondent no. 7 & 8.
C. For the direction upon the respondent CBI especially also to
investigate the history illegal mining committed by the person like
the respondent No. 7 and due to his influence, illegal mining is
done to public properties sold by Mr. Soren against the provisions
of law to himself only.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1153
D. For any other of the relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the light of the facts of this case."
In both these writ petitions the respondents which, inter alia,
included the State of Jharkhand as well as the incumbent Chief Minister,
Mr. Hemant Soren. A preliminary objection as to the maintainability of
the writ petition was raised by these two respondents. Objections were
also raised that the writ petitions do not disclose the particulars and
credentials of the petitioner nor does it follow the procedure as mandated
by the Rules, i.e., Rule 4, 4A, 4B,5 of the Rules, 2010.
4. Since, the Court nevertheless proceeded with the matter, the
petitioner had earlier filed a petition before this Court challenging the
proceedings before the Jharkhand High Court in the form of these two
Public Interest Litigations. The matter came up before a Division Bench
of this Court and the following orders were passed on 24.05.2022 in
SLP (C) Nos. 9728-9730 of 2022:
"A batch of three writ petitions is pending before the Division
Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand:
(i)
(In Writ Petition (PIL) No 4632 of 2019; the petitioner,
Arun Kumar Dubey, seeks, inter alia, a direction to
the Directorate of Enforcement to investigate 15 FIRs
pertaining to alleged offences arising out of the
disbursement of MANREGA funds to Khunti Zila
Parishad implicating offences under Sections 406, 409,
420, 423, 429, 465 and 1208 of the Indian Penal Code
and Sections 11. 12(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988;
(ii)
In Writ Petition (PIL) No 4290 of 2021; the petitioner,
Shiv Shankar Sharma seeks a direction for an
investigation into the alleged transfer of SLP Cr. 97299730/2022 monies by the Soren family in the names
of respondent Nos 8 to 13 through the instrumentality
of certain shell companies; and
(iii)
In Writ Petition (PIL) No 727 of 2022; the petitioner
Shiv Shankar Sharma seeks a direction for
sanctioning the prosecution of the Chief Minister for
obtaining a mining lease in his own name implicating
STATE OF JHARKHAND v. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA
AND ORS. [SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
offences under the provisions of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code.
5. On 22 April 2022, when Writ Petition (PIL) No 4290 of 2021
came up before a Division Bench presided over by the Chief
justice, the Court recorded the submission of the counsel for the
State that "an identical writ petition was dismissed with costs by
this Court filed by the same counsel and the matter went up to the
Supreme Court" where the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
After issuing certain procedural directions for the impleadement
of the Registrar of Companies, the Division Bench directed that
the proceedings in Writ Petition (PIL) No 4290 of 2021 be placed
along with the records of Writ Petition (PIL) No 4218 of 2013 on
1.3 May 2022.
6. On 13 May, 2022, the High Court, inter alia, noted the submissions
of the State of Jharkhand objecting to the maintainability of the
petition. This was dealt with in the following extract:
 "At this juncture, Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Advocate,
appearing for the State of Jharkhand, has made a submission
that he has to raise a preliminary objection regarding the
maintainability of the case itself.
 We would consider the preliminary objection and then the merit
also, if required, on the next date of hearing"
7. The High Court posted the proceedings on 17 May 2022. On
17 May 2022, the High Court, after perusing a sealed cover which
was tendered on behalf of the Directorate of Enforcement, noted
the submission of the petitioner that WP (PIL) No 4362 of 2019
may be placed along side the petition which the High Court was
considering on the next date of hearing and accordingly the
proceedings were adjourned to 19 May 2022. On 19 May 2022,
the High Court has passed separate orders in Writ Petition (PIL)
Nos 727 of 2022, 4632 of 2019 and 4290 of 2021. The High Court
posted the proceedings on 24 May 2022.
8. The Special Leave Petitions have been instituted by the State
of Jharkhand in order to challenge the orders dated 13 May 2022
and 17 May 2022 in Writ Petition (PIL) No 4290 of 2021.
9. We have heard Mr Kapil Sibal, senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the State of Jharkhand, Mr Mukul Rohatgi, senior counsel
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1155
appearing on behalf of the sixth respondent (Shri Hemant Soren)
and Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General appearing on behalf of
the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Directorate of
Enforcement.
10. The sequence of events narrated in the earlier part of the
present order indicates that the High Court had, by its order dated
13 May 2022, specifically noted that it would consider the primary
objection to the maintainability of Writ Petition (PIL) No 4290 of
2021 and deal with the merits thereafter, if required, on the next
date of hearing.
11. Mr Kapil Sibal, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has adverted to the provisions of the Jharkhand High
Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010, more particularly
the provisions of Rules 4, 4-A, 4-B and 5.
12. Since the High Court has observed in its order dated 13 May
2022 that it would deal with the maintainability of the petition
upfront, we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate
in the interests of justice that the Division Bench presided over by
the learned Chief justice does so before without proceeding to the
merits of the public interest litigation.
13. The issue of maintainability should be dealt with by the High
Court on the next date of listing when the proceedings are taken
up. Based on the outcome of the objections to the maintainability
of the proceedings, the High Court may thereafter proceed in
accordance with law.
14. The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
15. This Court has had no occasion to deal with the merits of the
rival contentions which arise in the Special Leave Petitions or nor
has it become necessary for this Court to express any view on
the allegations which are levelled in the writ petition since that is
a matter which is pending consideration before the High Court.
16. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of."
5. Thus, consequent to the orders of this Court dated 24.05.2022,
the Jharkhand High Court before proceeding with the matter had to first
give its finding on the maintainability of the two PILs. The High Court
after hearing the petitioner as well as the respondents has come to a
STATE OF JHARKHAND v. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA
AND ORS. [SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
conclusion that an extremely serious matter has been raised in the PILs,
where there are allegations of large-scale corruption at the hands of the
present Chief Minister of Jharkhand, and even though there may be
some procedural irregularities in filing of the public interest litigations
that should not come in the way of the Court in entertaining the petition,
which is in public interest. Moreover, as to the Rules, (i.e., Rules 4, 4-A,
4-B, 5 of the Rules, 2010) which we shall refer shortly, it has been held
that they are directory and not mandatory in nature. Consequently, by
order dated 03.06.2022 the Court has held that the PILs are maintainable
and shall be dealt on its merit. This order has presently been challenged
before this Court.
6. As referred above we are concerned with two writ petitions
filed by the private respondent No.1 (i.e., Shiv Shankar Sharma) as Public
Interest Litigations before Jharkhand High Court. The first writ petition
is Writ Petition (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021, where a prayer has been made
to direct the Directorate General Income Tax, Investigation to enquire
into the money transferred by the Soren family in the name of private
respondents through the shell companies and also to investigate the source
of income of private respondents and to investigate the financial crime
committed by respondent No.6 i.e. Hemant Soren, the present Chief
Minister of Jharkhand, among other reliefs sought in the petitions.
7. 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. As
far as the second writ petition is concerned, a reply has been filed by the
State of Jharkhand before the Jharkhand High Court as well as by the
Chief Minister, Mr. Hemant Soren that full facts of the case have not
been stated by the petitioner in the petition and he has deliberately
suppressed the material facts. The mining lease which is alleged to have
been made in favour of the Chief Minister is on a land situated in Angadha
Mauza, Thana No. 26, Khata No.187, Plot No.482 and the total Area of
the land is only 0.88 Acres. It was allotted to Mr. Hemant Soren for a
period of 10 years between 17.05.2008 to 17.05.2018 after the expiry of
the lease period of 10 years an application for its renewal was made
belatedly by Mr. Hemant Soren on 06.06.2018 and by that time the lease
had lapsed. Subsequently by way of Gazette Notification No.1 of 2021
which was issued on 27.03.2021, fresh applications for the mining lease
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1157
were invited. A letter of intent was given in favour of Mr. Hemant Soren
on 16.06.2021. All the same on 04.02.2022 the respondent No. 7, i.e.,
Mr. Hemant Soren wrote to District Mining Officer, Ranchi for
surrendering mining lease with immediate effect. As per Section 26 of
Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 a demand for advance
of six months of royalty to be deposited by Mr. Hemant Soren and the
mining lease was surrendered and was accepted under the Rules on
11.02.2022. Therefore, according to the respondent at the time of filing
of the second writ petition (PIL) No.727 of 2022, there was no mining
lease in favour of respondent No. 7 as it had already stood surrendered.
In its reply dated 05.05.2022, the State of Jharkhand has also stated that
although the lease was renewed in favour of the Mr. Hemant Soren no
mining activity or extraction of stone took place on the mining lease
area. Further, in this regard if any anomaly has been committed and
respondent No. 7 has to suffer a disqualification from his office, for
having a mining lease in his favour, the matter in this regard is pending
inquiry before the Election Commission of India in a Reference case
No. 3(G) of 2022 which is registered on the reference received from the
Hon'ble Governor of Jharkhand under Article 1923 of the Constitution of
India. The Election Commission of India has issued a notice to the Chief
Secretary on 08.04.2022 seeking certain information which had been
duly supplied by the State vide its letter dated 26.04.2022. In other words,
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 in our view is totally an abuse of the process
of this Court.
8. Regarding 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 in our view is again an
3 Article 192. Decision on questions as to disqualifications of members-
(1) If any question arises as to whether a member of a House of the Legislature of a
State has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) of
article 191, the question shall be referred for the decision of the Governor and his
decision shall be final.
(2) Before giving any decision on any such question, the Governor shall obtain the
opinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion
STATE OF JHARKHAND v. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA
AND ORS. [SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1158
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
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.
9. This Court in Kunga Nima Lepcha v. State of Sikkim4 under
similar circumstances has held that a writ court is not an appropriate
forum for seeking an initiation of such an investigation. A reference to
the facts of Kunga Nima Lepcha (supra) would be relevant for our
purposes. In the above case, a writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution was filed directly before this Court where the petitioner had
alleged that the incumbent Chief Minister of the State of Sikkim
(impleaded respondent No.2) had misused his public office and had
amassed assets disproportionate to his known source of income. It was
also alleged that the Chief Minister has misappropriated a large volume
of public money at the cost of Government of India and the Government
of Sikkim. Thus, the relief sought by the petitioner was for issuance of
writ of mandamus directing the CBI to investigate the allegations that
have been made against the Chief Minister. This Court declined to
intervene in the matter holding that a constitutional court is not a forum
to seek redressal of this nature. The remedies evolved by way of writ
jurisdiction are of extraordinary nature and reliefs cannot be granted as
a matter of due course, where the statutory remedies are available to
the petitioner. In Paras 14 to 17 of the judgement it was said as follows:
"14. In the present petition, the petitioners have made a rather
vague argument that the alleged acts of corruption on part of Shri
Pawan Chamling amount to an infringement of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. We do not find any merit in this assertion
because the guarantee of "equal protection before the law" or
"equality before the law" is violated if there is an unreasonable
discrimination between two or more individuals or between two
or more classes of persons. Clearly, the alleged acts of
misappropriation from the public exchequer cannot be
automatically equated with a violation of the guarantee of "equal
protection before the law".
15. Furthermore, we must emphasise the fact that the alleged
acts can easily come within the ambit of statutory offences such
4 (2010) 4 SCC 513
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1159
as those of "possession of assets disproportionate to known sources
of income" as well as "criminal misconduct" under the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988. The onus of launching an investigation
into such matters is clearly on the investigating agencies such as
the State Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the
Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) among others. It is not
proper for this Court to give directions for initiating such an
investigation under its writ jurisdiction.
16. While it is true that in the past, the Supreme Court of India as
well as the various High Courts have indeed granted remedies
relating to investigations in criminal cases, we must make a careful
note of the petitioners' prayer in the present case. In the past,
writ jurisdiction has been used to monitor the progress of ongoing
investigations or to transfer ongoing investigations from one
investigating agency to another. Such directions have been given
when a specific violation of fundamental rights is shown, which
could be the consequence of apathy or partiality on the part of
investigating agencies among other reasons. In some cases, judicial
intervention by way of writ jurisdiction is warranted on account
of obstructions to the investigation process such as material threats
to witnesses, the destruction of evidence or undue pressure from
powerful interests. In all of these circumstances, the writ court
can only play a corrective role to ensure that the integrity of the
investigation is not compromised. However, it is not viable for a
writ court to order the initiation of an investigation. That function
clearly lies in the domain of the executive and it is up to the
investigating agencies themselves to decide whether the material
produced before them provides a sufficient basis to launch an
investigation.
17. It must also be borne in mind that there are provisions in the
Code of Criminal Procedure which empower the courts of first
instance to exercise a certain degree of control over ongoing
investigations. The scope for intervention by the trial court is hence
controlled by statutory provisions and it is not advisable for the
writ courts to interfere with criminal investigations in the absence
of specific standards for the same."
10. This Court, thus declined to interfere in the matter holding that
the petitioner must approach the investigating agencies directly with the
STATE OF JHARKHAND v. SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA
AND ORS. [SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1160
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
incriminating material and then it is for the investigating agencies to decide
on the further course of action. Although an apprehension was raised by
this Court that it is possible that the efforts of the petitioner to uncover
alleged corruption may be obstructed by entrenched interests, yet
statutory remedies available to the petitioner must be first exhausted
and only thereafter can he approach the High Court. In the present case
no such effort has been made by the respondent (i.e., the petitioner in
the PIL) to approach the statutory authorities in any manner whatsoever.
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. This principle cannot be ignored merely because this
Court is dealing with a Public Interest Litigation. With regard to the
present Public Interest Litigations before us, it is an admitted fact that
the respondent has not taken any steps in approaching the statutory
authorities or made any effort in the registration of an FIR.
11. Public Interest Litigation was a novel form adopted by this
Court in the late 1970's and the early 1980's to hear the grievances of
the vast section of the society which were poor, marginalized and had no
means to reach the Supreme Court for articulating their grievance. It
was thus the Public Interest Litigation which became the means by which
a voice was given to this large voiceless section of our society (See:
State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors.5 M.C. Mehta
v. Union of India & Ors.6). The strict procedures of the Court were
dispensed in a PIL, and in its early stages a PIL could also be entertained
on a mere letter, or a postcard! It is for these reasons it has also come to
be known as epistolary jurisdiction.