Ranchi/PatnaOne hour ago
On Thursday, the Jharkhand High Court heard the matter of CM Hemant Soren’s own mining lease allotment and those close to him related to the shell company. As soon as the hearing started, the government’s lawyer Kapil Sibal sought time from the court. He said that an intervention petition has been filed by the government in the Supreme Court in this matter. Keeping this in mind, time should be given to them. After this, the court has given 4 days to hear the matter. Now the next hearing of this case will be on May 24.
During the hearing, the court said that seeing the documents submitted by the ED to the court, it appears that this matter is very important and is related to public interest.
Why is the government opposing this petition? Earlier, on the orders of the court, all the 16 cases related to the MNREGA scam in Khunti were handed over to the court. Along with this, during the hearing, the court wanted to know from the government that how a charge-sheeted officer can be authorized to file an affidavit?
Government sought information submitted by ED
Along with this, the government has demanded from the court that the information given by the ED in the court should also be given to the government. On this, ED’s lawyer Tushar Mehta said that this information is only for the court and not for the government.
ED had revealed many important secrets in the last hearing
ED’s lawyer Tushar Mehta told the court, “There were 16 FIRs in 2010. After this ED found in its investigation that crores of rupees are with Pooja Singhal. The amount of bribe they received used to reach the people sitting at the top of the power. Money laundering was done through the shell company of the bribe money. In the investigation, some people have admitted that money laundering used to happen. One person has given a list of companies used for money laundering.
CBI is being ordered to investigate
Asked the counsel for the petitioner, ‘Why should this matter be given to the CBI, when no FIR has been registered in this case.’ On this, the petitioner’s counsel Rajiv Kumar argued, “On issues related to public interest, the court can pass an order of inquiry.” At the same time, he informed the court that this matter is related to the case of Pooja Singhal.
,