Hemant Soren – who handles the mining portfolio – has been asked to respond by May 10.
New Delhi:
The Election Commission has sent notice to Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren asking him to explain why action should not be taken against him on the allegations of giving himself a mining license in Ranchi in June 2021. The commission’s move came after the governor referred it. The matter to the Election Commission following a complaint from the opposition Mr Soren – who handles the mining department – has been asked to submit his response by May 10.
The mining lease clearly violates Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, which deals with disqualification on government contracts. The opposition has claimed that Mr Soren can be disqualified for obtaining a lease under Article 191(e) of the Constitution of India as well as Section 9(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The ruling Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, in a petition to Governor Ramesh Bais, has claimed that Section 9(a) of the Representation of the People Act does not apply on lease. The JMM claimed that the opposition was trying to “create an atmosphere of political turmoil in the state and destabilize the democratically elected government”.
“Stone mining does not constitute ‘acts done by the government’,” the JMM said in the petition, citing a Supreme Court judgment in a similar case.
The party argued that Mr Soren was not in the business of mining and that the mining lease agreement he had entered into was “not in the course of his business”.
“In no event, the mining lease agreement executed by Mr. Soren has been acted upon and does not exist. Thus, none of the necessary conditions laid down to trigger section 9(a) in the case of Mr. Hemant Soren does not exist.” The party protested, requesting the Governor to forward the representation to the Election Commission.
In 2001, the Supreme Court had clarified in a case involving Kartar Singh, the then MLA of Haryana, that a mining lease was not a contract for the execution of any work done by the government.
The court said: “As we see, it is only when the appropriate government has undertaken works such as laying of a road, construction of a building or construction of a dam and has entered into a contract for the execution of such works. That the contractor is ineligible under section 9-A. Section 9-A does not act to disqualify the lessee of the mining lease such as the appellant.”
Under section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, a person can be disqualified unless he has entered into a contract in the State and for the supply of goods with the appropriate Government or for the performance of any act done by him. have done business for. That government.
According to the JMM, an MLA can be disqualified if he has entered into a contract in the course of his business or profession; The contract should be made with the appropriate government; that the contract must be maintained; That the contract should be related to the works done by that government and the contract should be for the performance of such works.