New Delhi: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has written to the Jharkhand government questioning its “locus standi” in seeking details of the ongoing probe into the alleged illegal stone mining in Sahibganj district and summons to five state officials.
This comes after principal secretary of the Jharkhand cabinet secretariat and vigilance Vandana Dadel, who is also the principal secretary to Chief Minister Hemant Soren, sought the grounds for the ED summons issued to some state officials.
More importantly, Dadel’s memo came in the backdrop of the Hemant Soren government coming out with a new SOP on 9 January under which response to all summons issued to government officials by “external agencies” have to go through the office of Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat and Vigilance Department.
On Wednesday, the ED’s Ranchi zonal office Wednesday responded to Dadel’s memo in which she enquired about the “schedule offences” for which government officials were summoned without informing the state.
ThePrint has seen a copy of the ED’s letter saying that the principal secretary has not been summoned personally and that individuals — Naushad Alam, Ram Niwas Yadav and three others — have been summoned under Section 50(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Yadav is the Deputy Commissioner while Naushad Alam is the Superintendent of Police of Sahibganj, Both are under the scanner in the alleged illegal stone mining. Alam is believed to have a role in ED’s key witness Vijay Hansda turning hostile.
The mining case stems from an FIR filed by Sahibganj Police against Hemant Soren’s MLA representative Pankaj Mishra, the alleged kingpin, and other individuals including the officials of the Jharkhand government.
Earlier on 3 January, the ED had searched 12 locations including the residences of Jharkhand CM’s press adviser Abhishek Prasad Pintu, the Sahibganj deputy commissioner and the DSP in connection with the stone mining probe.
ThePrint had reported that the ED estimated that about 23.26 crore cubic feet of stones, worth about Rs 1,250 crore, were illegally mined from Sahibganj.
Also Read: 13 years later, NIA catches main accused in Kerala professor hand-chopping case
‘Derive power from Parliament’
In a strongly-worded letter, the ED stated that the investigation officer is not allowed to share any information related to the case with the office of the principal secretary, as it is not authorised either to get details of the case or to intervene.
It further sought an explanation from the principal secretary to explain the intervention in the case as well as to inform that any internal departmental order will not apply to the ED officers as the agency derives its investigative powers from the PMLA enacted by Parliament.
“It is to clarify that the central government alone has been assigned power to either issue direction or make rules for carrying out the provisions of PMLA under Section 52 and 73 respectively and Section 73 further provides that rulemaking power of the central government is subject to approval by Parliament under Section 74. It is amply clear from provisions of Section 52 and 73 that the state government has no locus standi to either issue any direction or frame any rule either to carry out investigation under the provisions of PMLA, or to interfere in the scope of provisions,” the ED wrote.
Last week, ED officials ThePrint spoke to had termed the state’s SOP ‘bizarre’ and ‘a delaying tactic’ to slow down the investigation.
Under Section 50 (2) of the PMLA, they said, ED officials of director, additional director, joint director, deputy director or assistant director rank have the authority to summon any person whose attendance they consider necessary, be it to give evidence, or produce any records during any investigation.
The agency, meanwhile, alleged that the Jharkhand government had sought information with two “oblique objectives”.
“The unwarranted instructions/directions issued by you to the IO under the PMLA as well as to Ram Niwas Yadav, IAS, a person summoned under Section 50 (2) of PMLA, are clearly intended to achieve two — one to seek the confidential information about an ongoing sensitive investigation, and second to encourage or coerce persons summoned under Section 50 (2) to disobey the provisions of Section 50 (3) as well as to make them submit tailormade information as approved by the official of the State Government to influence the investigation in particular manner,” the ED wrote.
At the same time, the ED warned its officers will take necessary actions, including filing criminal cases for offences such as influencing ongoing probe, obstructing public servants from discharging their duties as well as hatching conspiracy to disobey the summons.
“It is amply clear from the content of your communication that you are trying to usurp power of Central Government under Section 52 as per which Central Government can issue directions for proper administration of the PMLA as well as power of Central Government and Parliament under section 73 and 74 of PMLA for framing rules to carry out the provisions of PMLA,” the ED said.
Given that the state has no authority in this regard, the federal agency asserted, the communication by the principal secretary is “beyond the legal competence of the state government”.
(Edited by Tony Rai)
Also Read: Sahus of Lohardaga — after over Rs 300-cr IT seizure, lens on 6 brothers, their firms, Congress link