STATE OF JHARKHAND versus SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA AND ORS.

[2022] 18 S.C.R.

STATE OF JHARKHAND

SHIV SHANKAR SHARMA AND ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 8233-34 of 2022)

BNOVEMBER 07, 2022

[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI, S. R. BHAT ANDSUDHANSHU DHULIA JJ.]

Constitution of India: Art. 32 – Public Interest Litigation –Misuse of PIL – Maintainability of PIL – Two writ petitions as PublicCInterest Litigations filed before the High Court by respondent No.1, seeking direction to the Directorate General, Investigation IncomeTax to enquire into the money transferred by the Chief Minister ofJharkhand’s Family in the name of private respondents through theshell companies and to investigate the source of income of privateDrespondents and investigate financial crime committed by the ChiefMinister – In second one, direction sought to prosecute the ChiefMinister for misusing his office in getting mining lease in his ownname – High Court holding the PIL maintainable and deciding toproceed on its merits – Held: Allegations which had been made ofmoney laundering and money being invested in shell companiesEare mere allegations – Prayer to Investigation Agencies withoutsubstantiating allegation to investigate, is abuse of process of court–Moreover, the locus of the petitioner is questionable and has notapproached the Court with clean hands - No effort has been madeby the respondent to approach the statutory authorities whereasFthe fundamental requirement for the issuance of writ of mandamusis that the petitioner must have sought such relief before theappropriate authority and only when it is denied the Court can beapproached for writ mandamus – Non-disclosure of thecredentials of the petitioner and the past efforts made for similarreliefs as it has been mandated under the PIL Rules 2010 discreditsGthese petitions – There is no finding of the High Court that anyfurther delay in this matter would have made the petition infructuousor redundant, which may have justified the relaxation of the Rules4, 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 Rule6-A – Thus, even though the Rules have not been followed thatH

really will not come in the way of the Court to entertain PIL, sincethe nature of allegations in the PIL was of serious nature –Allegations made by the respondents are vague, generalized andnot substantiated to be called an evidence –On generalizedaverments which are nothing but mere allegations at this stage, theCourt cannot become forum to investigate the alleged acts ofmisdeeds against high constitutional authorities – It was not properfor the High Court to entertain PIL –Thus, the order passed bythe High Court set aside – Jharkhand High Court (Public InterestLitigation) 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 2021the allegations which had been made of money laundering andmoney being invested in shell companies are again mereallegations. The petitioner has actually sought an investigationby the Court. It prays for writ of mandamus in this regard to theInvestigating Agencies such as CBI or Enforcement Directorateto investigate. This is again an abuse of the process of the Court,as the petition is short of wild and sweeping allegations, there isnothing placed before the Court which in any way may be calledto be prima facie evidence. Moreover, the locus of the petitioneris questionable and the clear fact that he has not approached theCourt with clean hands makes it case which was liable to bedismissed at the very threshold. [Para 8][1157-F-G; 1158-A-B]1.2 The second Writ Petition (PIL) No. 727 of 2022 is theone where direction has been sought to prosecute the ChiefMinister, who is also the Minister in the Department of Mines.The reason being that he has misused his office in getting mininglease in his own name. This matter as regarding the mining leasein favour of the Chief Minister, i.e., Mr. Hemant Soren and hisdisqualification from office, is pending consideration with theElection Commission of India. So much for the second writpetition 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 therespondent (i.e., the petitioner in the PIL) to approach the

Astatutory authorities in any manner whatsoever. The fundamentalrequirement for the issuance of writ of mandamus is that thepetitioner must have sought such relief before the appropriateauthority and only when it is denied the Court can be approachedfor writ mandamus. This principle cannot beignored merelybecause this Court is dealing with Public Interest Litigation.BWith regard to the present Public Interest Litigations, it is anadmitted fact that the respondent has not taken any steps inapproaching the statutory authorities or madeanyeffortin theregistration of an FIR. [Para 10][1160-B-D]

1.4 The above Rules, 2010 were madepursuant toCthedirections of the Supreme Court in the case of Balwant SinghChaufal’s case. Rules were to be framed so that it is no more leftto the individual judges to devise their own procedure, but toensure uniformity in entertaining PIL, and to encourage genuinePIL and discourage PIL which are filed with oblique motive.

DTherefore, the importance of these Rules can never beunderestimated. [Para 11][1163-E-F]

1.5 What is of crucial significance in PIL is the bona fideof the petitioner who files the PIL. It is an extremely relevantconsideration and must beexamined by the Court at the veryEthreshold itself and this has to be done irrespective of theseemingly high public cause being espoused by the petitioner ina PIL. [Para 12][1164-A-B]

1.6 In the reply filed by the State of Jharkhand before theHigh Court in W.P. No. (PIL) 4290 of 2021, an objection wasFtaken regarding the suppression of the earlier writ petition beingW.P. (PIL) No. 4218 of 2013 as well. Hence, it is clear that thepetitioner did not approach this Court with clean hands as he didnot disclose the dismissal of the W.P. (PIL) No. 4218 of 2013 bythe Jharkhand High Court with costs, an order which was upheldby this Court in SLP No. 4886 of 2014 by order dated 28.02.2014.GThis is alsoa clear violation of Rule, 4B of the Rules, 2010whichrequired the petitioner to disclose of all similar efforts made inthe 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 beH

recorded by the Court where the case calls for an urgentintervention by the Court and it is not practicable to allow anydelay to be caused in the matter. Presently, there is no finding ororder of the Jharkhand High Court that any further delay in thismatter would have made the petition infructuous or redundant,which may have justified the relaxation of the Rules. To thecontrary, the Jharkhand High Court has held that Rules 4, 4A,4B and 5 are not mandatory but directory in nature in view ofRule 6-A and therefore even though the Rules have not beenfollowed that really will not come in the way of the Court toentertain PIL, since the nature of allegations in the PIL was ofa serious nature. This reasoning is in teeth of the decision of thisCourt in directions given by this Court in Balwant Singh Chaufal’scase, as well as clear violation of the Jharkhand High CourtRules, primarily Rule 4-B. [Para 14][1165-G-H; 1166-A-B]1.8 The locus of the petitioner who initiates PIL istherefore of extreme importance as this important form oflitigation should not be abused by motivated individuals to abusethe process of the Court for their political purposes or for anyother reason, but for 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 prosecutionin criminal case against the fatherofthepresentChief Ministerand therefore the Chief Minister has alleged an old enmity andpersonal vendetta at the hands of thepetitioner. In spite of suchobjection the PIL could have been heard had the petitioner comebefore the Court with clean hands. He has deliberately and wilfullywith held from the Court that an earlier writ petition (Writ PetitionNo. (PIL) 4218 of 2013) was filed on similar grounds seekingsimilar reliefs which was dismissed by the Jharkhand High Courton 22.11.2013 with costs, an order which was upheld by theSupreme Court vide order dated 28.02.2014 in SLP No. 4886 of2014. [Para 17][1169-G-H; 1170-A-B]

1.10 Allegations which were made by the petitioner arevague, very much generalized and not at all substantiated byanything worthy to be called an evidence. Allegations of corruptionand siphoning of money from shell companies are nothing but

Abald allegation, without substantiating the allegations in anymanner whatsoever and is therefore only asking the Court todirect Central Bureau of Investigation or the Directorate ofEnforcement to investigate the matter. This is nothing but anabuse of the process of the court. The Courts cannot allow itsprocess to be abused for oblique purposes. [Para 18, 19][1170-BC-E]

1.11 Petitioner alleges that the one of the respondents whois the present Chief Minister of Jharkhand has amassed hugewealth by corrupt means by abusing his position as ChiefMinister and has invested this money in about 32 companies ofCwhich description has been given. The petitioner then givesdetails of these companies as to who are the Directors, etc. Therespondent or his relatives are not the Directors of theCompanies. But then the petitioner states that he has informationthat he has been siphoning off this money and investing it in theseDshell companies through one Ravi Kejriwal who is allegedly aclose associate of the Chief Minister. The allegations of therespondent of money laundering through shell companies hasnot been supplemented by any kind of evidence, whatsoever. Thenames of persons who are allegedly responsible for the operationof these companies have been mentioned, but without producingEany concrete evidence, it has been stated that these persons areconnected/close aides or related to the Chief Minister. Further,none of the companies have been made party to the presentPILs, before the Jharkhand High Court. Thus, an order is soughtfrom the High Court to direct the Enforcement Directorate to

Finvestigate these so called “shell companies” without evenmaking the companies party in the writ proceedings. It is alsoan admitted fact that in relation to present two PILs, no FIR orcomplaint has been filed with the police or any authority agitatingthe grievances and these petitions have been filed before theHigh Court, without availing the statutory remedies. [ParaG20][1172-A-E]

1.12 It is not that people who occupy high offices shouldnot be investigated, but for High Court to take cognizance ofthe matter on these generalized submissions which do not evenmake prima facie satisfaction of the Court, is nothing but an abuseHof the process of the Court. The non-disclosure of the credentials

of the petitioner and the past efforts made for similar reliefs as ithas been mandated under the Rules, 2010 further discredits thesepetitions. The petitioner in the PILs did not go with clean handsbefore the High Court. Such petition was liable to be dismissedat the very threshold itself. If the petitioner has genuine reasonto pursue the matter, he has his remedies available under theCompanies Act or under other provisions of the law where hecan apprise the relevant authorities of the misdeeds of theDirectors or Promotors of the Companies. But on generalizedaverments which are nothing but mere allegations at this stage,the Court cannot become forum to investigate the alleged actsof misdeeds against high constitutional authorities. It was notproper for the High Court to entertain PIL which is based onmere allegations and half baked truth that too at the hands of aperson who has not been able to fully satisfy his credentials andhas come to the Court with unclean hands. The order passed bythe High Court are set aside. [Para 21][1172-F-H; 1173-A]

KungaNima Lepcha v. State of Sikkim (2010) 4 SCC513 : [2010] 3 SCR 787; State of Uttaranchal v. BalwantSingh Chaufal&Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 402 : [2010] 1SCR 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 SCC333 : [2001] 5 Suppl. SCR 511; Neetu v. State of Punjab(2007) 10 SCC 614 : [2007] 1 SCR 223; Ashok KumarPandey 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 Dalv. H.S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305– referred to.

ACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.8233-8234 of 2022.

From the Judgment and Order dated 03.06.2022 of the High Courtof Jharkhand at Ranchi in Writ Petition (PIL) No.4290 of 2021 and WritPetition (PIL) No.727 of 2022]BWith

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,CMs. Adya Shree Dutta, Tushar Arora, Ms. Pallavi Langar, Ms. PragyaBaghel, Jayant Mohan, Aniruddha Mahedevan Sethi, Dechen W.Lachungpa, Ms. Anusha, Ms. Aparajita Jamwal, S. K. Abbas, KarmaDorjee, Advs. for the Appellant.

S.V. Raju, K.M. Nataraj, ASGs, Abhinav Ramkrishna, AbhishekDRai, 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.ELeave granted.

1.The above two petitions have been filed before this Court bythe State of Jharkhand through the Resident Commissioner, challengingthe orders dated 03.06.2022 passed by the Division Bench of the HighCourt of Jharkhand, where the High Court has ordered that the PILsFfiled by respondent no.1 before the Jharkhand High Court aremaintainable, and thus the High Court decided to proceed with the matteron its merits. The petitioner here poses challenge to the verymaintainability of these two PILs. After hearing the parties at length,this Court vide its order dated 17.08.2022 had reserved its orders andGdirected that meanwhile the High Court shall not proceed further withthe matter.

2. The question before this Court is whether the petitions whichhave been filed before the Jharkhand High Court in the form of PublicInterest Litigations are maintainable in view of the settled position ofHlaw laid down by this Court in several of its earlier decisions. The question

is also whether these PILs comply with the provisions of the Rules relatingto the Public Interest Litigations, which is the Jharkhand High Court(Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 (for short “Rules, 2010”) and ifthey do not, were the petitions filed as PILs liable to be dismissed at thevery threshold if they were not in compliance of the provisions of theabove Rules relating to PIL.

3. Two public interest litigations petitions were filed before theJharkhand 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 wassought: -

“A. For the direction upon the respondents specially respondent’sespecially respondent no. 3[1] to enquire into the money transferredof Soren Family in the name of respondent no.’s, 8 to 13 and mayalso submit the report to Income Tax Department as to how thecompanies which are 28 in numbers have been used as parkingplace for ill gotten money.

B. For the direction upon the respondent no. 3 to investigate thesources of income of respondent no. 8 to 13 as because theybeing the close friends of Hemant Soren and Basant Soren haveinvested the money in number of companies as chain of hotels asit is shown that the owner is Ranjan Sahu and the Hotlips chain ofhotels and restaurants which was situated in small area near theChief Minister’s residents and later on removed have transformedinto six hotel chains situated at Kanke Road, Ratan Lal Complex,Ratu Road, Lalpur, Hinoo and Kamre.

C. For the direction upon the respondent no. 4[2] also to investigatethe financial crime committed by Hemant Soren which incomehas given to Ravi Kejriwal as he is connected to him sincechildhood and also having close connection with Ranjan Sahu, theso called owner of Hotlips Chain of hotels and restaurants andmay also investigate as at which point of time and place Mr. HemantSoren has committed illegality and earned crores of rupees andinvested in the name of these persons.

D. For the direction upon the respondent no. 5 to investigate themoney 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.

CDE

and they have amassed the huge wealth and returning the moneyat the time of election to Jharkhand Mukti Morcha headed byHemant Soren.

E. For any other of the relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court maydeem fit and proper in the light of the facts of this case.”

In the Second Writ Petition (PIL) No. 727 of 2022 the followingrelief was sought: -

“A. For the direction upon the respondent No.9 to grant sanctionfor prosecution, to prosecute the “The Chief Minister Cum, MinisterDepartment of Mines, for act of misuse of office and getting theMining Lease done in his own name, although, he being aDepartmental Minister/Chief Minister cannot do business (Article191(9) of Constitution) of mining, and also committed criminalact, 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, andalso to cancel his membership of assembly of Jharkhand, and alsohe has violated section 9 of the Peoples’ Representation Act, 1950& lastly, he has contravened the code of conduct framed by UnionGovernment for the Hon’ble Chief Minister & Ministers of States.B. For the direction upon the respondents especially respondentNo. 1, the Chief Secretary, Jharkhand to protect the relevant fileof Department of Mines wherein, the mining lease of AngadhaMauza, Thana No. 26, Khata No. 187, Plot No. 482, Area 0.88Acre for that Letter of intent (LOI) was issued on 16.06.21,approval of mining plan was given on 10.07.21, mining plan approvedon 09.09.21 & finally on 09.09.21 the respondent No. 7 has givenapplication, which was approved in its 90[th] meeting dated 14-18September, 2021, within such short time although, the SEIAAhas given environmental clearance to new High Court buildingafter so many months, ANDA, directions may be issued to CentralBureau of Investigation (CBI) & Enforcement Directorate toinvestigate the crime committed by respondent no. 7 & 8.

C. For the direction upon the respondent CBI especially also toinvestigate the history illegal mining committed by the person likethe respondent No. 7 and due to his influence, illegal mining isdone to public properties sold by Mr. Soren against the provisionsof law to himself only.

D. For any other of the relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court maydeem 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. preliminary objection as to the maintainability ofthe writ petition was raised by these two respondents. Objections werealso raised that the writ petitions do not disclose the particulars andcredentials of the petitioner nor does it follow the procedure as mandatedby the Rules, i.e., Rule 4, 4A, 4B,5 of the Rules, 2010.

4. Since, the Court nevertheless proceeded with the matter, thepetitioner had earlier filed petition before this Court challenging theproceedings before the Jharkhand High Court in the form of these twoPublic Interest Litigations. The matter came up before Division Benchof this Court and the following orders were passed on 24.05.2022 inSLP (C) Nos. 9728-9730 of 2022:

“A batch of three writ petitions is pending before the DivisionBench of the High Court of Jharkhand:

(i)(In Writ Petition (PIL) No 4632 of 2019; the petitioner,Arun Kumar Dubey, seeks, inter alia, direction tothe Directorate of Enforcement to investigate 15 FIRspertaining to alleged offences arising out of thedisbursement of MANREGA funds to Khunti ZilaParishad implicating offences under Sections 406, 409,420, 423, 429, 465 and 1208 of the Indian Penal Codeand Sections 11. 12(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Preventionof Corruption Act, 1988;

(ii)In Writ Petition (PIL) No 4290 of 2021; the petitioner,Shiv Shankar Sharma seeks direction for aninvestigation into the alleged transfer of SLP Cr. 9729-9730/2022 monies by the Soren family in the namesof respondent Nos 8 to 13 through the instrumentalityof certain shell companies; and

(iii)In Writ Petition (PIL) No 727 of 2022; the petitionerShiv Shankar Sharma seeks direction forsanctioning the prosecution of the Chief Minister forobtaining mining lease in his own name implicating

offences under the provisions of the Prevention ofCorruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code.

5. On 22 April 2022, when Writ Petition (PIL) No 4290 of 2021came up before Division Bench presided over by the Chiefjustice, the Court recorded the submission of the counsel for theState that “an identical writ petition was dismissed with costs bythis Court filed by the same counsel and the matter went up to theSupreme Court” where the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.After issuing certain procedural directions for the impleadementof the Registrar of Companies, the Division Bench directed thatthe proceedings in Writ Petition (PIL) No 4290 of 2021 be placedalong with the records of Writ Petition (PIL) No 4218 of 2013 on1.3 May 2022.6. On 13 May, 2022, the High Court, inter alia, noted the submissionsof the State of Jharkhand objecting to the maintainability of thepetition. 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 submissionthat he has to raise preliminary objection regarding themaintainability of the case itself.

We would consider the preliminary objection and then the meritalso, if required, on the next date of hearing”

7. The High Court posted the proceedings on 17 May 2022. On17 May 2022, the High Court, after perusing sealed cover whichwas tendered on behalf of the Directorate of Enforcement, notedthe submission of the petitioner that WP (PIL) No 4362 of 2019may be placed along side the petition which the High Court wasconsidering on the next date of hearing and accordingly theproceedings 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 Courtposted the proceedings on 24 May 2022.

8. The Special Leave Petitions have been instituted by the Stateof Jharkhand in order to challenge the orders dated 13 May 2022and 17 May 2022 in Writ Petition (PIL) No 4290 of 2021.

9. We have heard Mr Kapil Sibal, senior counsel appearing onbehalf of the State of Jharkhand, Mr Mukul Rohatgi, senior counsel

appearing on behalf of the sixth respondent (Shri Hemant Soren)and Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General appearing on behalf ofthe Central Bureau of Investigation and the Directorate ofEnforcement.

10. The sequence of events narrated in the earlier part of thepresent order indicates that the High Court had, by its order dated13 May 2022, specifically noted that it would consider the primaryobjection to the maintainability of Writ Petition (PIL) No 4290 of2021 and deal with the merits thereafter, if required, on the nextdate of hearing.

11. Mr Kapil Sibal, senior counsel appearing on behalf of thepetitioner has adverted to the provisions of the Jharkhand HighCourt (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010, more particularlythe provisions of Rules 4, 4-A, 4-B and 5.

12. Since the High Court has observed in its order dated 13 May2022 that it would deal with the maintainability of the petitionupfront, we are of the considered view that it would be appropriatein the interests of justice that the Division Bench presided over bythe learned Chief justice does so before without proceeding to themerits of the public interest litigation.

13. The issue of maintainability should be dealt with by the HighCourt on the next date of listing when the proceedings are takenup. Based on the outcome of the objections to the maintainabilityof the proceedings, the High Court may thereafter proceed inaccordance 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 therival contentions which arise in the Special Leave Petitions or norhas it become necessary for this Court to express any view onthe allegations which are levelled in the writ petition since that isa 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 firstgive its finding on the maintainability of the two PILs. The High Courtafter hearing the petitioner as well as the respondents has come to

Aconclusion that an extremely serious matter has been raised in the PILs,where there are allegations of large-scale corruption at the hands of thepresent Chief Minister of Jharkhand, and even though there may besome procedural irregularities in filing of the public interest litigationsthat 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,B4-B, 5 of the Rules, 2010) which we shall refer shortly, it has been heldthat they are directory and not mandatory in nature. Consequently, byorder dated 03.06.2022 the Court has held that the PILs are maintainableand shall be dealt on its merit. This order has presently been challengedbefore this Court.C6. As referred above we are concerned with two writ petitionsfiled by the private respondent No.1 (i.e., Shiv Shankar Sharma) as PublicInterest Litigations before Jharkhand High Court. The first writ petitionis Writ Petition (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021, where prayer has been madeto direct the Directorate General Income Tax, Investigation to enquireDinto the money transferred by the Soren family in the name of privaterespondents through the shell companies and also to investigate the sourceof income of private respondents and to investigate the financial crimecommitted by respondent No.6 i.e. Hemant Soren, the present ChiefMinister of Jharkhand, among other reliefs sought in the petitions.

E7. The second Writ Petition (PIL) No. 727 of 2022 is the onewhere direction has been sought to prosecute the Chief Minister, whois also the Minister in the Department of Mines. The reason being thathe has misused his office in getting mining lease in his own name. Asfar as the second writ petition is concerned, reply has been filed by theState of Jharkhand before the Jharkhand High Court as well as by theFChief Minister, Mr. Hemant Soren that full facts of the case have notbeen stated by the petitioner in the petition and he has deliberatelysuppressed the material facts. The mining lease which is alleged to havebeen made in favour of the Chief Minister is on land situated in AngadhaMauza, Thana No. 26, Khata No.187, Plot No.482 and the total Area ofGthe land is only 0.88 Acres. It was allotted to Mr. Hemant Soren for aperiod of 10 years between 17.05.2008 to 17.05.2018 after the expiry ofthe lease period of 10 years an application for its renewal was madebelatedly by Mr. Hemant Soren on 06.06.2018 and by that time the leasehad lapsed. Subsequently by way of Gazette Notification No.1 of 2021which was issued on 27.03.2021, fresh applications for the mining leaseHwere invited. letter of intent was given in favour of Mr. Hemant Sorenon 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 forsurrendering mining lease with immediate effect. As per Section 26 ofJharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 demand for advanceof six months of royalty to be deposited by Mr. Hemant Soren and themining lease was surrendered and was accepted under the Rules on11.02.2022. Therefore, according to the respondent at the time of filingof the second writ petition (PIL) No.727 of 2022, there was no mininglease 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 thatalthough the lease was renewed in favour of the Mr. Hemant Soren nomining activity or extraction of stone took place on the mining leasearea. Further, in this regard if any anomaly has been committed andrespondent No. 7 has to suffer disqualification from his office, forhaving mining lease in his favour, the matter in this regard is pendinginquiry before the Election Commission of India in Reference caseNo. 3(G) of 2022 which is registered on the reference received from theHon’ble Governor of Jharkhand under Article 192[3 ]of the Constitution ofIndia. The Election Commission of India has issued notice to the ChiefSecretary on 08.04.2022 seeking certain information which had beenduly 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 pendingconsideration with the Election Commission of India. So much for thesecond writ petition which in our view is totally an abuse of the processof this Court.

8. Regarding the first Writ Petition No. (PIL) 4290 of 2021 theallegations which had been made of money laundering and money beinginvested in shell companies are again mere allegations. The petitionerhas actually sought an investigation by the Court. It prays for writ ofmandamus in this regard to the Investigating Agencies such as CBI orEnforcement 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 member of House of the Legislature of aState has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) ofarticle 191, the question shall be referred for the decision of the Governor and hisdecision shall be final.

(2) Before giving any decision on any such question, the Governor shall obtain theopinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion

Aabuse of the process of the Court, as the petition is short of wild andsweeping allegations, there is nothing placed before the Court which inany way may be called to be prima facie evidence. Moreover, the locusof the petitioner is questionable and the clear fact that he has notapproached the Court with clean hands makes it case which wasliable to be dismissed at the very threshold.B

9. This Court in Kunga Nima Lepcha v. State of Sikkim[4]undersimilar circumstances has held that writ court is not an appropriateforum for seeking an initiation of such an investigation. reference tothe facts of Kunga Nima Lepcha (supra) would be relevant for ourpurposes. In the above case, writ petition under Article 32 of theCConstitution was filed directly before this Court where the petitioner hadalleged that the incumbent Chief Minister of the State of Sikkim(impleaded respondent No.2) had misused his public office and hadamassed assets disproportionate to his known source of income. It wasalso alleged that the Chief Minister has misappropriated large volumeof public money at the cost of Government of India and the GovernmentDof Sikkim. Thus, the relief sought by the petitioner was for issuance ofwrit of mandamus directing the CBI to investigate the allegations thathave been made against the Chief Minister. This Court declined tointervene in the matter holding that constitutional court is not forumto seek redressal of this nature. The remedies evolved by way of writEjurisdiction are of extraordinary nature and reliefs cannot be granted asa matter of due course, where the statutory remedies are available tothe petitioner. In Paras 14 to 17 of the judgement it was said as follows:

“14. In the present petition, the petitioners have made rathervague argument that the alleged acts of corruption on part of ShriPawan Chamling amount to an infringement of Article 14 of theFConstitution of India. We do not find any merit in this assertionbecause the guarantee of “equal protection before the law” or“equality before the law” is violated if there is an unreasonablediscrimination between two or more individuals or between twoor more classes of persons. Clearly, the alleged acts ofGmisappropriation from the public exchequer cannot beautomatically equated with violation of the guarantee of “equalprotection before the law”.

15. Furthermore, we must emphasise the fact that the allegedacts can easily come within the ambit of statutory offences such

H4 (2010) 4 SCC 513

as those of “possession of assets disproportionate to known sourcesof income” as well as “criminal misconduct” under the Preventionof Corruption Act, 1988. The onus of launching an investigationinto such matters is clearly on the investigating agencies such asthe State Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or theCentral Vigilance Commission (CVC) among others. It is notproper for this Court to give directions for initiating such aninvestigation under its writ jurisdiction.

16. While it is true that in the past, the Supreme Court of India aswell as the various High Courts have indeed granted remediesrelating to investigations in criminal cases, we must make carefulnote of the petitioners’ prayer in the present case. In the past,writ jurisdiction has been used to monitor the progress of ongoinginvestigations or to transfer ongoing investigations from oneinvestigating agency to another. Such directions have been givenwhen specific violation of fundamental rights is shown, whichcould be the consequence of apathy or partiality on the part ofinvestigating agencies among other reasons. In some cases, judicialintervention by way of writ jurisdiction is warranted on accountof obstructions to the investigation process such as material threatsto witnesses, the destruction of evidence or undue pressure frompowerful interests. In all of these circumstances, the writ courtcan only play corrective role to ensure that the integrity of theinvestigation is not compromised. However, it is not viable for awrit court to order the initiation of an investigation. That functionclearly lies in the domain of the executive and it is up to theinvestigating agencies themselves to decide whether the materialproduced before them provides sufficient basis to launch aninvestigation.

17. It must also be borne in mind that there are provisions in theCode of Criminal Procedure which empower the courts of firstinstance to exercise certain degree of control over ongoinginvestigations. The scope for intervention by the trial court is hencecontrolled by statutory provisions and it is not advisable for thewrit courts to interfere with criminal investigations in the absenceof specific standards for the same.”

10. This Court, thus declined to interfere in the matter holding thatthe petitioner must approach the investigating agencies directly with the

Aincriminating material and then it is for the investigating agencies to decideon the further course of action. Although an apprehension was raised bythis Court that it is possible that the efforts of the petitioner to uncoveralleged corruption may be obstructed by entrenched interests, yetstatutory remedies available to the petitioner must be first exhaustedand only thereafter can he approach the High Court. In the present caseBno such effort has been made by the respondent (i.e., the petitioner inthe PIL) to approach the statutory authorities in any manner whatsoever.The fundamental requirement for the issuance of writ of mandamus isthat the petitioner must have sought such relief before the appropriateauthority and only when it is denied the Court can be approached for aCwrit mandamus. This principle cannot be ignored merely because thisCourt is dealing with Public Interest Litigation. With regard to thepresent Public Interest Litigations before us, it is an admitted fact thatthe respondent has not taken any steps in approaching the statutoryauthorities or made any effort in the registration of an FIR.

11. Public Interest Litigation was novel form adopted by thisCourt in the late 1970’s and the early 1980’s to hear the grievances ofthe vast section of the society which were poor, marginalized and had nomeans to reach the Supreme Court for articulating their grievance. Itwas thus the Public Interest Litigation which became the means by whichEa voice was given to this large voiceless section of our society (See:State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors.[5] M.C. Mehtav. Union of India & Ors.[6]). The strict procedures of the Court weredispensed in PIL, and in its early stages PIL could also be entertainedon mere letter, or postcard! It is for these reasons it has also come tobe known as epistolary jurisdiction. This Court in Balwant Singh ChaufalF(supra) while dealing with origin and development of PIL in this countryhas divided its growth into three phases which has been given in its Para43 as under: -

“Phase-I: It deals with cases of this Court where directions andorders were passed primarily to protect fundamental rightsGunder Article 21 of the marginalized groups and sections of thesociety who because of extreme poverty, illiteracy and ignorancecannot approach this court or the High Courts.

5 (2010) 3 SCC 4026 (1987) 1 SCC 395H

Phase-II: It deals with the cases relating to protection, preservationof ecology, environment, forests, marine life, wildlife, mountains,rivers, historical monuments etc. etc.

Phase-III: It deals with the directions issued by the Courts inmaintaining the probity, transparency and integrity in governance.”

This Court then traced the abuse of the Public Interest Litigationand observed that this important jurisdiction has come to be abused, atthe hands of ill motivated individuals, busy bodies and publicity seekers.A reference was then made to the cases of BALCO Employees’Union (Regd). v. Union of India & Ors.[7]and Neetu v. State ofPunjab[8]where frivolous cases filed as PILs were discouraged and evencosts were imposed on the petitioner in such cases. The credentials ofthe applicant who files PIL was held to be of extreme importance asalso the correctness of the nature of information given by the petitionerwhich had to be clear, not vague or indefinite or even generalized. It wasalso held that nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and recklessallegations, demeaning the character of others. The following directionswere given in Para 181 of Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra): -

“(1) The Courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL andeffectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneousconsiderations.

(2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedurefor dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriatefor each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouragingthe genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with obliquemotives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who havenot yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months.The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensurethat copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to theSecretary General of this Court immediately thereafter.

(3) The Courts should prima facie verify the credentials of thepetitioner before entertaining PIL.

(4) The Courts should be prima facie satisfied regarding thecorrectness of the contents of the petition before entertaining aPIL.

7 (2002) 2 SCC 333

8 (2007) 10 SCC 614

A(5) The Courts should be fully satisfied that substantial publicinterest is involved before entertaining the petition.

(6) The Courts should ensure that the petition which involves largerpublic interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority overother petitions.

B(7) The Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that thePIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury.The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, privatemotive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation.

(8) The Courts should also ensure that the petitions filed byCbusybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouragedby imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methodsto curb frivolous petitions and the petitions filed for extraneousconsiderations.”

Consequent to above directions made by this Court in BalwantDSingh Chaufal (supra) every High Court has framed its rules for dealingwith Public Interest Litigation including the Jharkhand High Court. Forour purpose the relevant Rules would be Rules 4, 4-A, 4-B, 5 and 6.These Rules are reproduced as under: -

“4. The petitioner in Public Interest Litigation shall state inclear terms the relief prayed for in paragraph-1 of the petition andEgrounds in paragraph-2 thereof. In paragraph-3, the petitioner shallgive his/her full and complete details so as to reveal his/her interest,credentials and qualifications relevant for the Public InterestLitigation, along with declaration that he/she has no personalinterest, direct or indirect, in the subject matter of Public InterestFLitigation. In addition, the petitioner shall set out all relevant factsalong with available supporting data, reports etc.

4-A. If Public Interest Litigation is filed by person on behalfof Body of Individuals, by whatever name called, whetherregistered or unregistered and whether incorporated or not, theGpetition must give full details and history of such Body, and mustalso clearly specify the authority of that person to represent suchBody in that Litigation so as to make the decision therein bindingon all individuals of such Body.

4-B. Every Public Interest Litigation will chronologically mentionin detail all such other and earlier efforts with their result, whichH

are within the petitioner’s knowledge, and which have been madeby the petitioner or others for obtaining the relief sought by thePublic Interest Litigation.

5. To encourage only genuine and bona fide Public InterestLitigation and discourage Public Interest Litigation filed forextraneous considerations, the Bench hearing Public InterestLitigation shall first verify the prima facie credentials of thePetitioner before entertaining any case as Public InterestLitigation. Thereafter, notice may be issued to the AdvocateGeneral or to any other authority to enable the Bench hearing thematter to come to prima facie satisfaction regarding thecorrectness of the contents of the petition or information beforeentertaining the same as Public Interest Litigation.

6. For the aforesaid purpose, Public Interest Litigation, shallfirst be listed with appropriate office notes under the heading “ForOrders” before the appropriate Division Bench.

6-A. The above procedure may be relaxed by the concernedBench, for reasons to be recorded, in cases which call for suchurgent intervention by the Court that it is not practicable to allowthe delay which may be caused in following the above procedure.”

The above Rules, 2010 were made pursuant to the directions ofthe Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra). Ruleswere to be framed so that it is no more left to the individual judges todevise their own procedure, but to ensure uniformity in entertaining aPIL, and to encourage genuine PIL and discourage PIL which are filedwith oblique motive. In one of the directions, it was said as under:

“(2) Instead of every individual Judge devising his own procedurefor dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriatefor each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouragingthe genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with obliquemotives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who havenot yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months.The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensurethat copy of the rules prepared by the High Court is sent to theSecretary General of this Court immediately thereafter.”

Therefore, the importance of these Rules can never beunderestimated.

A12. What is of crucial significance in Public Interest Litigation isthe bona fide of the petitioner who files the PIL. It is an extremelyrelevant consideration and must be examined by the Court at the verythreshold itself and this has to be done irrespective of the seemingly highpublic cause being espoused by the petitioner in PIL.B13. Let us now examine the nature of the PIL which is before us,

B13. Let us now examine the nature of the PIL which is before us,i.e., W.P. (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021. The petitioner who had filed this PILas well as the other PIL (W.P. (PIL) No. 727 of 2022), and the reliefs inthem have already been referred above. It is an admitted case that inthe year 2013 similar petition was filed being W.P. (PIL) No. 4218 of2013 (Diwan Indranil Sinha Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.) which wasCdismissed by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court on22.11.2013, with costs of Rs. 50,000/- and thereafter an SLP was filedagainst this order before this Court which was also dismissed by orderdated 28.02.2014. What is necessary for our consideration is that thoughthe said petition was filed by different person, i.e., Sri Diwan IndranilDSinha, but this was in the knowledge of the petitioner in this PIL, as thecounsel for the petitioner in the earlier petition, i.e., in W.P. (PIL) No.4218 of 2013, and the counsel in the present petition, are the same.Therefore, it can be reasonably presumed that the dismissal of the W.P.(PIL) No. 4218 of 2013 would be in the knowledge of the petitioner. Yetthe petitioner in W.P. (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021 did not even mention theEearlier writ petition or the fact that it was dismissed by the High Courtwith costs on 22.11.2013. The fact that it was in the knowledge of thepetitioner is evident as in the petition (W.P. (PIL) No. 4290 of 2021), asupplementary affidavit was filed on 20.04.2022 where the petitioner(Sri Shiv Shankar Sharma) does mention that one Diwan Indranil Sinha

F(i.e., the petitioner in W.P. (PIL) No. 4218 of 2013) had approachedconstitutional authorities about the alleged misdeeds of the Chief Ministerof Jharkhand. In Paras 3 and 4 the following was stated :

“3. That, the petitioner states that, prior to him one Late DiwanIndranil Sinha has sent representations with all the details of theGcompanies & the documents in support of the illegal earnings beforethe

Hon’ble President of India,

Hon’ble Home Minister

Hon’ble Governor Jharkhand,H

The Director C.B.I.

The Director, Enforcement Directorate

The Central Vigilance Commissioner

The Director, General, (Investigation, Income Tax.)

Photocopies of the receipts showing detailed representation sentby Late Diwan Indranil Sinha before various authorities dt. 16.11.14& 21.01.14 are annexed and marked as Annexure-4 Series to thisapplication.

4. That, the petitioner states that, the efforts taken earlier by LateDiwan Indranil Sinha, wherein, the representation sent by himhas been received by the Central Bureau of Investigation, andhas enquired on their own Level and communicated to him VideLetter No. 376 dated 05.11.14, stating there in that

“3. You may, if so desire, approach the competent court or, suitabledirection in the matter.”

Thus, it is clear that, there was prima facie material availablebefore them, for proceeding in the matter.

Photocopy of the Letter No.376 dt. 5.11.14 of C.B.I. is annexedand marked as Annexure-5 to this application.”

In the reply filed by the State of Jharkhand before the High Courtin W.P. No. (PIL) 4290 of 2021, an objection was taken regarding thesuppression of the earlier writ petition being W.P. (PIL) No. 4218 of2013 as well. Hence, it is clear that the petitioner did not approach thisCourt 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 (orderdated 22.11.2013), an order which was upheld by this Court in SLP No.4886 of 2014 by order dated 28.02.2014. This is also clear violation ofRule, 4B of the Rules, 2010 which required the petitioner to disclose ofall similar efforts made in the past.

14. No doubt the above procedure as given in Rules 4, 4A, 4Band 5 can be relaxed under Rule 6, for the reasons to be recorded by theCourt where the case calls for an urgent intervention by the Court and itis 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 furtherdelay in this matter would have made the petition infructuous or redundant,

Awhich 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 notmandatory but directory in nature in view of Rule 6-A and thereforeeven though the Rules have not been followed that really will not comein the way of the Court to entertain PIL, since the nature of allegationsin the PIL was of serious nature. This reasoning, in our view, is in teethBof the decision of this Court in directions given by this Court in BalwantSingh Chaufal (supra), as well as clear violation of the JharkhandHigh Court Rules, primarily Rule 4-B.

15. At this stage, let us now see as to what the Jharkhand HighCourt had to say in the year 2013, while dismissing W.P. (PIL) No. 4218Cof 2013. While dismissing that PIL, with costs of Rs. 50,000/- it was saidas under: -

“17. Time and again, it has been held that Public Interest Litigationis weapon which has to be used with great care andcircumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful toDsee that behind the beautiful veil of ‘public interest’ an ugly privatemalice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking.Though the parameters of ‘Public Interest Litigation’ have beenindicated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in large number of cases,yet unmindful of the real intention and objections, number of PublicEInterest Litigation are filed.

18. The petitioner has not approached the concerned. authoritiesat the relevant point of time. The petitioner has chosen to file thisPublic Interest Litigation only after respondent No.1 0 has assumedthe Office of Chief Minister of the State of Jharkhand. We do notFfind any bona fide in this Public Interest Litigation filed by the writpetitioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.

19. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of theview that there is no bona fide in the Public Interest Litigationfiled by the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed with cost ofGRs. 50,000/-(fifty thousand). This amount, of course, will bedeposited by the petitioner within period of 6(six) weeks fromtoday before the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, “NyayaSadan”, Doranda, Ranchi. The Registry is hereby directed to senda copy of this order to the Member Secretary, Jharkhand StateLegal Services Authority.”

The dismissal of similar PIL was fact which was also notdisclosed by the petitioner, which he would be duty bound to do so inview of Rule 4-B of the Rules, 2010. This Court in the case of AshokKumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal & Ors.[9]had this to say onthe credentials of the person who files PIL, has stated as under :-

“4. When there is material to show that petition styled as apublic interest litigation is nothing but camouflage to fosterpersonal disputes, said petition is to be thrown out. Before wegrapple with the issue involved in the present case, we feel itnecessary to consider the issue regarding public interest aspect.Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy animportant field in the administration of law should not be “publicityinterest litigation” or ‘’private interest litigation” or ‘’politics interestlitigation” or the latest trend ‘’paise income litigation”. If notproperly regulated and abuse averted it becomes also tool inunscrupulous hands to release vendetta and wreck vengeance, aswell. There must be real and genuine public interest ‘involved inthe litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant or pokeone’s noses into for probe. It cannot also be invoked by personor body of persons to further his or their personal causes orsatisfy his or their personal grudge and enmity. Courts of justiceshould not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants byresorting to the extra-ordinary jurisdiction. person acting bonafide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interestlitigation will alone have locus standi and can approach the Courtto wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infractionof statutory provisions, but not for personal gain or private profitor political motive or any oblique consideration. These aspectswere highlighted by this Court in The Janata Oaf case (supra)and Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (1994Supp (2) SCC 116). writ petitioner who comes to the Court forrelief in public interest must come not only with clean hands likeany other writ petitioner but also with clean heart, clean mindand clean objective. See Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India(AIR 1993 SC 852) and K. R. Srinivas v. R. M. Premchand (1994(6) SCC 620).

XXXXXX

9 AIR 2004 SC 280

A12. Public interest litigation is weapon which has to be usedwith great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to beextremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of publicinterest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicityseeking fs not lurking. It Is to be used as an effective weapon inthe armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens.BThe attractive brand name of public interest litigation should notbe used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed atredressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicityoriented or founded on personal vendetta. As indicated above,Court must be careful to see that body of persons or member ofCpublic, who approaches’ the Court is acting bona fide and not forpersonal gain or private motive ‘or political motivation or otheroblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to beabused for oblique considerations. Some persons with vestedinterest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial processeither by force of habit or from improper motives. Often they areDactuated by desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. Thepetitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejectionat the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.

XXX

E14. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of theapplicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of informationgiven by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite.The information should show gravity and seriousness involved.Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i)nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegationsFbesmirching the character of others: and (ii) avoidance of publicmischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, foroblique motive, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however,the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely carefulto see that under the guise of redressing public grievance, itGdoes not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitutionto the, Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to actruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies ormeddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men.They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act inthe name of Pro Bono Publico though they have no interest of theHPublic or even of their own to protect.

XXX

16. As noted supra, time has come to weed out the petitions,which though titled as public interest litigations are in essencesomething else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded withlarge number of so called public interest litigations where even aminuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interestlitigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation havebeen indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet unmindfulof the real intentions and objectives, Courts are entertaining suchpetitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above,could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Thoughin Dr. Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Ors. (AIR1999 SC 114), this Court held that in service matters PILs shouldnot be entertained, the inflow of so· called PILs involving servicematters continues unabated in the Courts and strangely areentertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw themout on the basis of the said decision. The other interesting aspectis that in the PILs. official documents are being annexed withouteven indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. Inone case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given asto its possession. It was stated that packet was lying on the roadand when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copiesof the official documents. Whenever such frivolous pleas are takento explain possession, the Court should do well not only to dismissthe petitioners but also to impose exemplary costs. If would bedesirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions anddismiss them with costs as afore-stated so that the message goesin the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do nothave the approval of the Courts.”

16. The locus of the petitioner who initiates PIL is therefore ofextreme importance as this important form of litigation should not beabused by motivated individuals to abuse the process of the Court fortheir political purposes or for any other reason, but for Public Cause.

17. Petitioner in this case is admittedly the son of Dr. GautamSharma who was one of the witnesses for the prosecution in criminalcase[10] against the father of the present Chief Minister and therefore the

10 Sessions Case No. 3 of 2006 before Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court,New Delhi, in case of Section 302, 201 IPC.

AChief Minister has alleged an old enmity and personal vendetta at thehands of the petitioner. To our mind, in spite of such objection the PILcould have been heard had the petitioner come before the Court withclean hands. He has deliberately and wilfully withheld from the Courtthat an earlier writ petition (Writ Petition No. (PIL) 4218 of 2013) wasBfiled on similar grounds seeking similar reliefs which was dismissed bythe Jharkhand High Court on 22.11.2013 with costs, an order which wasupheld by the Supreme Court vide order dated 28.02.2014 in SLP No.4886 of 2014.

18. Furthermore, the allegations which were made by the petitionerCare vague, very much generalized and not at all substantiated by anythingworthy to be called an evidence. Allegations of corruption and siphoningof money from shell companies are nothing but bald allegation, withoutsubstantiating the allegations in any manner whatsoever and is thereforeonly asking the Court to direct Central Bureau of Investigation or theDirectorate of Enforcement to investigate the matter. This is nothing butDan abuse of the process of the court.19. The Courts cannot allow its process to be abused for obliquepurposes, as was observed by this Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey v.State of West Bengal[11]. In Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) this CourtEhad discussed the three stages of PIL which has been discussed above.Then this Court in Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) states as to how thisimportant jurisdiction, i.e., PIL has been abused at Para 143 by observingas under:

“143. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such anFimportant jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, createdand nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is beingblatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. Wethink time has come when genuine and bona fide public interestlitigation must be encouraged whereas frivolous public interestGlitigation should be discouraged. In our considered opinion, wehave to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the largerinterest of the people of this country but we must take effectivesteps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary andnon-monetary directions by the courts.”

This Court then refers to the case of Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd.v. Prem Chand Mishra[12]which has relied on the Judgement of thisCourt in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary[13], at Para 10 said as under:

“12. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumperyproceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days arewasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for thedisposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare noefforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PILand extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant,the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights areinfringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed,unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express ouropinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievancesrelating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds ofmillions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentencedto death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentencedto life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years,persons suffering from undue delay in service matters—government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of caseswherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorised collectionof tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release fromthe detention orders, etc. etc. are all standing in long serpentinequeue for years with the fond hope of getting into the courts andhaving their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesomeinterlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutelyno public interest except for personal gain or private profit eitherof themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneousmotivation or for glare of publicity, break the queue muffing theirfaces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get intothe courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thuscriminally waste the valuable time of the courts and as result ofwhich the queue standing outside the doors of the courts nevermoves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds ofthe genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in theadministration of our judicial system.

12 (2007) 14 SCC 281

13 (1992) 4 SCC 305

A20. Now let us see what are the nature of allegations which havebeen made by the petitioner in the PIL filed before the Jharkhand HighCourt. Petitioner alleges that the one of the respondents who is the presentChief Minister of Jharkhand has amassed huge wealth by corruptmeans by abusing his position as Chief Minister and has invested thismoney in about 32 companies of which description has been given. TheBpetitioner then gives details of these companies as to who are theDirectors, etc. The respondent or his relatives are not the Directors ofthe Companies. But then the petitioner states that he has informationthat he has been siphoning off this money and investing it in these shellcompanies through one Ravi Kejriwal who is allegedly close associateCof the Chief Minister. The allegations of the respondent of moneylaundering through shell companies has not been supplemented by anykind of evidence, whatsoever. The names of persons who are allegedlyresponsible for the operation of these companies have been mentioned,but without producing any concrete evidence, it has been stated thatthese persons are connected/close aides or related to the Chief Minister.DFurther, none of the companies have been made party to the presentPILs, before the Jharkhand High Court. Thus, an order is sought fromthe High Court to direct the Enforcement Directorate to investigate theseso called “shell companies” without even making the companies partyin the writ proceedings. It is also an admitted fact that in relation toEpresent two PILs, no FIR or complaint has been filed with the police orany authority agitating the grievances and these petitions have been filedbefore the High Court, without availing the statutory remedies.

21. We are not for moment saying that people who occupy highoffices should not be investigated, but for High Court to take cognizanceFof the matter on these generalized submissions which do not even makeprima facie satisfaction of the Court, is nothing but an abuse of theprocess of the Court. The non-disclosure of the credentials of thepetitioner and the past efforts made for similar reliefs as it has beenmandated under the Rules, 2010 further discredits these petitions. The

petitioner in the PILs did not go with clean hands before the High Court.GIn our view, such petition was liable to be dismissed at the very thresholditself. If the petitioner has genuine reason to pursue the matter, he hashis remedies available under the Companies Act or under other provisionsof the law where he can apprise the relevant authorities of the misdeedsof the Directors or Promotors of the Companies. But on generalizedHaverments which are nothing but mere allegations at this stage, the Court

cannot become forum to investigate the alleged acts of misdeeds againsthigh constitutional authorities. It was not proper for the High Court toentertain PIL which is based on mere allegations and half baked truththat too at the hands of person who has not been able to fully satisfyhis credentials and has come to the Court with unclean hands.

22. Consequently, we allow the present appeals and set aside theorder of 03.06.2022 passed by the Jharkhand High Court in W.P. No.(PIL) 4290 of 2021 and W.P. No. (PIL) 727 of 2022.

Nidhi Jain and Anurag Bhaskar

Appeals allowed.

(Assisted by : Bodhi Ramteke, LCRA)