Shimla, Oct 2 (UNI) The Supreme Court has stayed a Himachal Pradesh High Court’s order mandating a fresh Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into a complaint of extortion bid and threat to life made by Palampur businessman Nishant Sharma involved in a property dispute, a lawyer said on Wednesday.



A Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud stayed the High Court’s order on Tuesday and fixed November 4 for the next hearing.





The Supreme Court will now determine whether the High Court exceeded its authority by mandating another investigation after the initial SIT had already submitted its findings.





The case revolves around an extortion bid and alleged attack on Nishant Sharma and the subsequent alleged laxity of government and law-enforcement agencies, with the complainant accusing a top police official of interfering in his property dispute.



The stay ordered by the Apex Court offers interim relief to retired DGP Sanjay Kundu, an Indian Administrative Service officer, an Indian Police Service officer and an advocate against whom fresh SIT investigation was ordered by the High court.



In the Apex court, Kundu and others had challenged the impugned order passed on September 23 by a division bench of Chief Justice M S Ramachandra Rao and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua.



The High Court’s order came on a plea by Sharma who alleged that the investigation, led by the previous SIT, was biased and incomplete, focusing on disproving the attack on him rather than thoroughly investigating the underlying motives, particularly the extortion allegations.



Following the High Court’s directive, special leave petitions were filed by those involved in the original investigation, challenging the need for a fresh SIT probe.



The petitioner stated that high court passed order of fresh SIT against them despite Advocate General representing the state argued that the initial SIT had already conducted a thorough investigation, which concluded the matter.





The intervention by the High Court, they claimed, was unnecessary and overreached its jurisdiction.









UNI ML RC