New Delhi, Oct 7 (PTI) BJP MP Nishikant Dubey approached the Delhi High Court on Friday, seeking to vacate its earlier order staying the proceedings initiated by the Lokpal against Jharkhand Mukti Morcha chief Shibu Soren on the basis of his "corruption" complaint.

Justice Yashwant Varma asked Soren (75) to file a reply to Dubey's application and listed the case for further hearing on November 10.

Also Read | Vande Bharat Express Train Suffers Damage Yet Again Near Ahmedabad, Undergoes 'Nose-Job' After Hitting Cattle on Consecutive Day; Watch Video.

Soren had moved the court earlier this year, assailing Dubey's complaint and the Lokpal proceedings against him.

On September 12, the court had stayed the Lokpal proceedings against the former Jharkhand chief minister, while opining that the matter required consideration.

Also Read | Haryana Shocker: 26-Year-Old Son Arrested for Killing Father Over Property Dispute in Gurugram.

"The petitioner (Soren) is granted two weeks' time to respond to the application, which seeks vacation of the interim stay order granted by the court. List it in November," the judge said.

Appearing for Dubey, senior advocate A N S Nadkarni said he was seeking vacation of the ex-parte stay order on behalf of the "original complainant".

In the complaint made in August 2020, Dubey had claimed that "Soren and his family members acquired huge wealth and properties by misusing the public exchequer and have grossly indulged in corruption".

Nadkarni argued that the interim order was passed on the basis of "completely incorrect statements", including that a notice with respect to the filing of the petition was served to him by the petitioner.

In his application, Dubey said the proceedings before the Lokpal were at a "very nascent stage" and a stay would lead to the final relief to the petitioner and "erode the public faith in the system".

"Respondent no. 1 (Lokpal), during the course of the proceedings, would definitely examine the source, name and method by which the disproportionate assets were acquired.... Admittedly, there is enough evidence and material to show that the petitioner has amassed huge wealth and disproportionate assets beyond his known source of income and therefore, the Hon'ble court should not have come to the rescue of the petitioner at this stage when the respondent no. 1 was in the process of examining and analysing the material available before it," the application filed through advocate Rishi K Awasthi said.

In the petition filed through lawyers Pallavi Langar and Vaibhav Tomar, the petitioner said the corruption complaint was "motivated by political vendetta" and in view of the provisions of the Lokpal Act, the authority cannot act on allegations made seven years after the alleged offence was committed.

"The complaint is motivated by political vendetta and extraneous considerations, malafide, and designed to malign and harass the petitioner and his family members, who are members of the political party currently in power in the state of Jharkhand, and de-stabilise the state government in this process," the plea said.

"The respondent no. 1, under the precincts of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, could not have taken cognizance of the complaint as the complaint itself records that save and except certain properties which admittedly belong to Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (a registered political party), none of the properties was acquired within seven years of the date of the complaint. The allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint are ex-facie malicious, false, baseless and frivolous," it claimed.

The petition added that these "illegalities and anomalies" vitiate the entire proceedings before the Lokpal and their continuance would be in gross abuse of the process of law and violate the fundamental rights guaranteed and protected under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

"Even as per the preliminary inquiry report submitted by the CBI, enclosing a list of 82 properties, none of the properties attributed to be owned by the petitioner or any of the other individuals mentioned in the report has been acquired within the seven-year period preceding the filing of the complaint," it has asserted.

"The petitioner specifically objected to the jurisdiction of the respondent no.1 to inquire or proceed with the matter in his letter dated 01.04.2022 submitted to the respondent no.1. However, by way of the impugned order, the respondent no.1 has directed initiation of proceedings under section 20(3) of the Lokpal Act, and called upon the petitioner for a hearing without dealing with the preliminary objection on the issue of jurisdiction," the plea has said.

(The above story is verified and authored by Press Trust of India (PTI) staff. PTI, India’s premier news agency, employs more than 400 journalists and 500 stringers to cover almost every district and small town in India.. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)