Durga Oraon vs State of Jharkhand and Others

I.A. No. 2978 of 2008

This is an application for impleadment of Shri Madhu Kora, Shri Binod Sinha and Sri Sanjay Choudhary as party-respondents, as it has been stated that they also stand on similar footing alongwith the other respondents, who have been alleged to have amassed huge wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income and in this regard, materials have been furnished in the application.

Since, the case of the persons, sought to be impleaded are on identical footing, we deem it appropriate that they should also be impleaded as party-respondents in the writ petition. The application for impleadment (I.A. No. 2978 of 2008), therefore, be treated as allowed and hence the cause title be suitably amended.

In view of their impleadment, let a show cause notice be issued to the newly impleaded respondents by registered post as well as by ordinary process, for which requisites etc. and P.F. be filed within a period of one week.

I.A. No. 3382 of 2008

This is an application for impleadment of one (i) Sarju Rai, M.L.A. (ii) Usha Martin Ltd. (iii) Rajeev Jhawar (iv) Akhilesh Pandey and (v) Krishi Gram Vikash Kendra as they are also stated to be on similar footing alongwith the other respondents, who have been alleged to have amassed huge wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income and in support of this, materials have been furnished in the application.

Since, the case of the persons named above who are sought to be impleaded, are on identical footing, we deem it appropriate to allow this application. The application (I.A. No. 3382 of 2008) is accordingly allowed.

Let a show cause notice be issued to the newly impleaded respondents by registered post as well as by ordinary process, for which requisites etc. and P.F. be filed within a period of one week.

W.P.(PIL) No. 4700 of 2008

Having heard learned Counsel for the Income Tax Department, we are of the view that neither the Income Tax Department nor the respondents have come out with a convincing reply that they have properties which are within their known sources of income and that they are not disproportionate to their known sources of income. The Income Tax Department from which assistance was sought, has resorted to the technical provisions under the Income Tax Act and it has been submitted that any opinion in regard to the disproportionate assets can be formed only by 31st December, 2009, which obviously will unnecessarily delay the proceedings in this writ petition.

In fact, this Court had thought it appropriate to take the assistance of the Income Tax Department merely to form an opinion as to whether the materials furnished by the petitioner is correct or incorrect, but sofar Income Tax Department has not been able to assist this Court in this regard for one reason or the other. Nevertheless, the fact remains that prima facie there are sufficient materials indicating disproportionate assets of the respondents who are impleaded as respondent Nos. 14 to 20 and in addition, materials have also been furnished in regard to the impleaded respondents in I.A. No. 2978 of 2008 and I.A. No. 3382 of 2008.

We, therefore, permit the respondent Nos. 14 to 20 as also the impleaded respondents to file reply to the averments made in the writ petition, which pertains to their disproportionate assets and the same be filed separately by each of the Respondents by 13th July, 2009.

The petition thereafter be listed again on 14th July, 2009.

In the meantime, the respondents are further directed to cooperate with the Income Tax authorities in regard to the notice which have been issued to them by the Department.

The copies of the writ petition as also the supplementary affidavit, be also furnished on the counsels representing the respondents at their own cost.