Former Vasai-Virar Commissioner Alleges ED’s Arrest 'Illegal And Misuse Of Law', Moves Bombay HC

Former Vasai-Virar City Municipal Corporation (VVCMC) commissioner Anil Pawar has moved the Bombay High Court challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), terming it “illegal, non-est, and an abuse of the process of law.”   

The writ petition, filed through his counsel Advocate Ujjwal Chavan, alleges that the central agency acted with prejudice, exceeded its jurisdiction, and sought to implicate Pawar by “cherry-picking" offences and shifting narratives. 

The petition contends that Pawar was arrested without sufficient material evidence and on the basis of “selective investigations and manipulated findings.” It further claims that the ED assumed powers to investigate corruption, disproportionate assets (DA), and income-tax related matters without any underlying scheduled offences, as required under the PMLA.

According to the plea, the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was registered based on just four FIRs related to illegal constructions, out of 206 complaints filed by the civic body. The petition states that the agency “cherry-picked” these four FIRs to satisfy the technical requirement of a predicate offence under PMLA, ignoring hundreds of other FIRs registered by municipal corporations across Maharashtra under the  Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act.

“The ED fixed its target first and then selectively collected evidence to suit its pre-decided narrative,” the petition states. 

The plea further claims that the alleged proceeds of crime (PoC) arise from payments made by buyers, either in cash or by cheque, to builders for flats in unauthorized constructions. The total saleable area is estimated at around nine lakh square metres, with rates ranging from Rs 1,500 to Rs 5,000 per square foot. On this basis, the petition states that the PoC may fall between Rs 100 crore and Rs 500 crore.

The petition argues that this PoC must be “specifically defined in the hands of each builder for each particular financial year,” noting that 43 accused builders named in the four FIRs had constructed 41 buildings housing nearly 3,500 families during 2008 to 2010. This, it adds, forms the “starting point of the PoC” from which any money trail under the PMLA ought to be investigated.

However, the petition argues that Pawar's arrest is illegal, since the arrest memo served on him, stating the grounds of arrest and reasons to believe, did not mention any specific amount from this PoC. This shows that the agency “failed to investigate the foundational fact of money laundering before arresting the petitioner.” 

The petition also underlines that the alleged offence period corresponds to the construction and sale of the buildings between 2008 and 2010, when the area was under CIDCO’s control. Pawar was not posted during that period, having taken charge as VVCMC Commissioner only on January 13, 2022.

The petition maintains that he did not receive any part of the alleged proceeds of crime, whether by cheque or cash. The petitioner never received any money from this PoC. Instead, he claims to have demolished all 41 illegal buildings, despite facing two violent attacks. 

The plea also highlights that no inquiry was conducted against commissioners who held office between 2010 and 2022, when the buildings remained standing. “By any stretch of imagination, the petitioner cannot be alleged to have taken protection money for these constructions,” the writ asserts.  

The petition also accuses the ED of repeatedly shifting the focus of its investigation—from initially targeting builders for cheating and forgery to probing disproportionate assets against another official, Y.S. Reddy, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It claims that the ED began investigations before the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) was officially informed, and there was no financial trail linking Reddy’s DA case to the PoC linked to Pawar.

The petition also accuses the ED of repeatedly shifting the focus of its investigation. According to the writ, the probe initially targeted builders for alleged cheating and forgery. Subsequently, the agency expanded its focus to include allegations of disproportionate assets (DA) against another official, Y.S. Reddy, under Sections 13(1)(b) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The writ claims that the ED commenced its investigation before the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) DGP of Maharashtra was officially informed, and that there was no financial link between the proceeds of crime (PoC) generated by the builders and Reddy.The ACB reportedly registered an FIR against Reddy on August 1, 2025.  

The petition states that the DA in Reddy’s case directly corresponds to the POC under PMLA, leaving no question of a money trail to Pawar. Yet, the ED conducted searches at Pawar’s premises on 29 July 2025, two days prior to Reddy’s FIR. Searches were also conducted at 13 other premises of distant relatives, with nil punchnama drawn, and no cash, jewellery, bullion, or property seized from Pawar’s official or residential premises. Cash recovered from relatives, including rS 1.33 crore from Janardan Pawar, was independently owned and accounted for. Pawar maintains that the ED cannot assume that this cash formed part of the alleged POC dating back to 2008–2010. 

The plea further asserts that the ED exceeded its jurisdiction since investigation of disproportionate assets falls under the ACB’s mandate, not the ED’s. Citing recent legal precedents, it contends that the ED cannot investigate predicate offences without a valid FIR and should await explanations before filing charges. No charge sheet has been filed against Pawar so far. 

The High Court is expected to hear the petition in the coming date.