Jharkhand High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking SIT Probe Into BJP MP Dhullu Mahto's Assets

The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe allegations of disproportionate assets and benami properties against the BJP MP from Dhanbad, Dhullu Mahto.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar held that the petition was not maintainable, stating that similar allegations had already been examined and rejected as not constituting a genuine public interest matter.

In its ruling, the Court said, “This Court, therefore, is of the view that once this Court has expressed its view holding the nature of allegation as has been made against Shri Dhullu Mahto as not the Public Interest Litigation, hence, if that order has been referred to raise the issue of maintainability of the present writ petition, then such issue cannot be said to be baseless.”

It further noted, “The objection regarding maintaining the writ petition in the light of the order dated 03.03.2016 passed by this Court W.P.(PIL) No.6438 of 2011 has not been challenged by the writ petitioner before the higher forum, therefore, this Court is of the view that such objection cannot be said to have no basis.”

“This Court, therefore, is of the view that the present writ petition is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed,” the Court concluded while dismissing the plea.

The above development came after a petition was filed by Somnath Chatterjee, seeking a writ constituting an SIT headed by a retired judge of the High Court and comprising officers comprising of a Superintendent of Police (SP) rank officer each from the Income Tax Department (ITD), Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and Jharkhand Police to investigate into the various allegations of disproportionate assets beyond known sources of income, corruption and various illegal activities against MP Dhullu Mahto in a time bound manner.

The petitioner also sought transfer of all investigations pending before different agencies to such an SIT, and a writ in the nature of a continuing mandamus to enable the Court to regularly monitor the investigation.

Advocate Anurag Tiwary, appearing for the Appellant, argued that the affidavits filed by the Enforcement Directorate and Income Tax Department showed the existence of disproportionate assets, but the investigations were not progressing at the proper pace, and therefore appropriate directions were needed to ensure their conclusion.

Opposing the plea, the Enforcement Directorate and Income Tax Department submitted that the petition was not maintainable in view of earlier orders passed by the High Court in 2016 and 2024 dismissing similar petitions. They informed the Bench that the ED had already registered a case based on FIRs against Mahto and that the Income Tax Department had issued notices and was carrying out reassessment proceedings under the Income Tax Act. They also pointed out that the person against whom reliefs were sought had not been impleaded in the present petition.

After considering the submissions, the Court held that the issue of maintainability had already been settled in earlier proceedings. It noted, “Moreover, the part of the order by which the observation was made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court holding the nature of allegation not to be a Public Interest Litigation has not been challenged before higher forum and, as such, the same has attained its finality.”

It further observed, “This Court, therefore, is of the view that if the present writ petition will be entertained, then the same will amount to reviewing the observation already made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the order dated 30.03.2016 passed in W.P.(PIL) No.6438 of 2011 against which the civil miscellaneous petition was also dismissed.”

Before closing, it clarified, “Before parting with the order, it needs to be mentioned that since the investigation/proceedings are pending before the Enforcement Directorate and Income Tax Department, as such, it is expected that said investigation/proceedings will be concluded in order to give logical end without any delay.”

With these observations, the High Court dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Somnath Chatterjee vs State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Anurag Tiwary, Advocate; Mr. Ritik Raj, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate; Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate; Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Advocate; Mr. Durgesh Agarwal, Advocate

Click here to read the judgment