Delhi High Court - Orders
Shibu Soren vs Lokpal Of India & Anr on 12 September, 2022
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
$~106
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13213/2022
SHIBU SOREN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Anurabh Chowdhary, Ms. Pallavi,
Mr. Krishanraj, Ms. Pragya Baghel,
Mr. Vaibhav Tomar, Ms Aparijita
Singh, Mr. Dechan L, Ms. Anusha
Nagarjuna, Advs.
versus
LOKPAL OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
ORDER
% 12.09.2022 CM APPL. 39981/2022(for exemption) Exemption Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application shall stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 13213/2022 & CM APPL. 39980/2022 (Int. Relief) Although the first and second respondents are stated to have been placed on advance notice, none has appeared on their behalf when the matter was called. Consequently, let learned counsel for the petitioner take steps for service upon the second respondent through all permissible modes including via approved courier service.
The petition essentially lays challenge to proceedings of investigation and enquiry as initiated by the first respondent in terms of the provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 ["the Act"]. The complaint has been taken cognisance of and a preliminary inquiry initiated at the behest of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:12.09.2022 18:54:22 first respondent Authority. On being placed on notice, the petitioner on 01 April 2022 took the objection that no investigation or enquiry could be conducted by the first respondent bearing in mind the provisions made in Section 53 of the Act and which debar that authority from taking further steps for investigation or enquiry on a complaint which may come to be laid in respect of acts committed seven years prior to the filing of that complaint. It is pointed out by Mr. Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, that barring two instances, all other allegations would fall foul of the injunct placed by Section 53. Insofar as the two other instances are concerned, those properties are not stated to have been acquired or held by the petitioner.
The Court notes that in the order of 04 August 2022 all that the first respondent records is that the comments as were received from the petitioner had been forwarded to the CBI so as to enable them to examine the same and submit an enquiry report. However, the challenge laid to the assumption of jurisdiction by the first respondent has neither been answered nor dealt with. Matter requires consideration.
Till the next date of listing, there shall be stay of further proceedings in Complaint No.38/2020 pending before the respondent No.1.
List again on 14.12.2022.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
SEPTEMBER 12, 2022/neha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:12.09.2022 18:54:22