Bombay HC Rejects PIL Seeking CBI Probe Against Pawars Over Lavasa Project, Says No ‘Roving Inquiry’ Permissible

Mumbai, Dec 27: Reiterating that courts cannot order fishing or roving inquiries merely to ascertain whether a crime was committed, the Bombay High Court has dismissed a criminal public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against NCP (SP) leader Sharad Pawar, his daughter and Baramati MP Supriya Sule, and his nephew, Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar, over alleged irregularities in the development of the Lavasa hill township in Pune district.

Court Says Probe Cannot Be Ordered To ‘Find Out’ A Crime

A bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad held that an investigation can be initiated only against identified persons in a crime or suspected crime, but not to reopen settled issues or to “find out commission of a crime” where previous challenges have already been adjudicated and rejected.

No Roving Or Fishing Inquiry Permissible: HC

“An investigation can be caused to find out the involvement of an accused person or a set of accused persons in the crime or a suspected crime, but there cannot be a roving inquiry or investigation into the allegations,” the court said in its detailed order dismissing the criminal PIL filed by Nashik-based advocate Nanasaheb Jadhav.

Earlier PIL On Lavasa Already Dismissed In 2022

The court noted that allegations concerning land allocation, special permissions and exemptions granted to the Lavasa project were earlier raised in another PIL by Jadhav, which was dismissed in February 2022.

“The allegation of committing misconduct in allocation of land, the special permission and exemptions granted for the project cannot be questioned in view of the dismissal of the (earlier) PIL,” the bench observed.

No Scope For Inquiry Against Pawars, Says Bench

“In this background, the acts and omissions, if any, on the part of individuals, such as Sharad Pawar, Ajit Pawar, Supriya Sule, etc., are not open for any inquiry or investigation,” the judges added.

Petitioner’s Delay Also Questioned

Jadhav had sought a direction to the CBI to register an FIR against the Pawars for alleged illegal permissions granted for developing a hill station at Lavasa. He argued that he could not approach a magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a magistrate had no power to direct a CBI investigation.

Rejecting the plea, the High Court pointed out that Jadhav had filed a complaint with the Pune police commissioner in December 2018 and had the opportunity to seek appropriate relief in the earlier PIL, which remained pending until its dismissal in 2022. “The petitioner does not offer any explanation why he remained silent for about six years,” the court noted.

Lavasa Project Now A ‘Ghost City’

The bench also took into account that the Lavasa project was conceived over 25 years ago, that 18 villages were notified as hill station areas, and that the project has since failed, becoming a “ghost city” with its promoters embroiled in multiple litigations, including liquidation proceedings.

Also Watch:

PIL Not Found To Serve Public Purpose

While clarifying that it was not attributing any malafide intent to the petitioner, the court said it was “hesitant to say that this is a bona fide PIL for a public cause”, adding that no public purpose would be served by granting any indulgence at this stage. Accordingly, the PIL was dismissed as not maintainable.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/