HC seeks ED’s reply to former VVCMC Commissioner’s plea alleging ‘illegal arrest’ in land scam

A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A Ankhad was hearing a writ plea by Pawar seeking declaration of his arrest by ED officers as “illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional” and direction to set aside entire proceedings initiated against him.

He also sought direction to quash and set aside remand order of August 14 issued by special court designated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and sought petitioner be released forthwith. The plea also sought direction to prohibit ED from assuming investigation related to matters for which no scheduled offence has been registered.

The ED had claimed that Pawar and Reddy, the two officials of the VVCMC had granted commencement certificates in urban and green zone areas for a total area of approximately 550 lakh sq ft, equivalent to over 55,000 flats of 1,000 square feet each.

Senior advocate Sudeep Pasbola and advocate Ujjwalkumar Chavhan claimed that Pawar “was not in the picture at the relevant time period of the offence” and there was “no FIR registered directly or indirectly against him in any police station,” therefore there was no predicate or scheduled offence against him. The petition stated that Pawar has not received any amount which can be termed as proceeds of crime.

It added there was “no material” on record to suggest that Pawar received commission for permitting illegal construction and for protecting such structures.

He submitted the allegation based on WhatsApp chat that the petitioner received over Rs 17.75 crore from Reddy and the amount parked with a distant relative of the petitioner was “vague” with “no reference to the date, time or name of the relative” and the amount was also non-specific.

Claiming that there was “no unbroken money trail leading to the petitioner,” the plea said Pawar could not be charged under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The petition also alleged the search conducted on premises of Pawar and his relative was “illegal,” therefore ED failed to substantiate its allegations.

The HC sought the central agency’s reply to the plea and posted further hearing to September 30.