The Jharkhand High Court rejected a PIL brought by an Advocate accusing Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren of corruption. The Court stated that such petitions should only be entertained if authorities fail to take action. Sunil Kumar Mahto, the petitioner, claimed that the CM engaged in corrupt practices, securing mining leases under his own name, his wife's organization, and his wife's name.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra and Justice Ananda Sen observed, “The other allegation is regarding certain financial irregularities with respect to M/s. Sohrai Livestock Farms Private Limited, M/s. Shiv Shakti Enterprises, etc. In the case of State of Jharkhand Vs. Shiv Shankar Sharma (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that before seeking any redressal through a Public Interest Litigation in the High Court, the petitioner should approach the concerned authorities regarding the allegations that he is making. Only when the authorities do not take any action, the petition should be filed and should be entertained.”

Advocate Rajiv Kumar represented the petitioner, whereas Advocate General Rajiv Ranjan and Advocate Amit Kumar Das appeared for the respondents in the mentioned case before the court.

In this instance, the petitioner, SK Mahto, an advocate practicing in the Jharkhand High Court, presented himself as a public-spirited individual. He claimed a proactive role in ensuring the integrity of public offices, aiding those in need to access justice. Alleging corruption against the current CM of Jharkhand, Mahto submitted a supplementary affidavit mentioning prior representations made to the Governor's Office and an RTI application seeking information on actions taken regarding the representation.

The Public Information Officer communicated that the representation had been forwarded to the Chief Secretary's Cell for appropriate action, yet no action ensued. Following this, letters were directed to the President of India, Prime Minister, Home Minister, and the President's Secretariat CPIO, revealing a chain of referrals. The President's Secretariat forwarded it to the Home Secretary, who then redirected it to the Ministry of Mines. The Ministry of Mines, however, indicated that the issue fell under the jurisdiction of the State Government. The petitioner alleged that authorities were evading responsibility, passing it among themselves, and failing to address the alleged corruption involving high-ranking officials.

The Court noted that the issue regarding the alleged unlawful allocation of mining leases to the CM was already under consideration, either with the Election Commission of India or the relevant authority. Given that the Supreme Court hadn't exercised its discretion to initiate an investigation specifically targeting the CM, the Court indicated that issuing further orders in favor of the petitioner would contradict the judgment passed by the Supreme Court.

“Annexure 2 is the only representation made by the petitioner and it is regarding the self-same allegation of grant of mining lease in favour of respondent No. 7 with respect of stone quarry (pathar khadan), etc. … Thus, it is our considered view that if we allow the writ application and direct investigation of the case against respondent No. 7 and others, then it will be in the teeth of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand vs. Shiv Shankar Sharma (supra)," added the Court.

The Court also said that the petitioner has not approached the authorities prior to filing the writ application regarding any allegation or grievances with respect to the prayer made in the instant PIL. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Cause Title: Sunil Kumar Mahto v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.