Will withdraw order transferring seven cases against city developer to SIT: Maharashtra Govt to SC

Agarwal, a land developer from Mira Road-Bhayander, had earlier filed two extortion complaints against former Mumbai police commissioner Param Bir Singh.
On March 18, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, on instructions from the Maharashtra government, stated before a bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court that “the petitioner-State will withdraw the order dated September 21, 2023 which was impugned before the High Court.”

Mehta added that the DGP will examine all the aspects and will take a decision on the issue of constituting SIT. “In view of the statement made, now the order dated September 21, 2023 does not survive and therefore, the writ petition pending before the High Court does not survive. Hence, the present Special Leave Petition as well as writ petition stand disposed of,” the bench noted.

“We make it clear that the issue of whether in the facts of the case, a Special Investigation Team can be constituted is left open,” it clarified. On February 14, an HC bench headed by Justice A S Chandurkar had stayed the September 21, 2023 communication noting that it ‘does not indicate the probe being undertaken in the said seven cases was either shown to be unsatisfactory, partisan or that the investigation was not proceeding in a proper direction.’ However, it had said that the probe in seven cases lodged at various police stations would be continued.

“There is no prima-facie material on record to indicate any satisfaction being recorded that as the said seven cases were not being properly or impartially investigated, it was found necessary to transfer them to the SIT,” the HC had noted.

Representing Agarwal, senior advocate S Muralidhar had told the HC that cases were lodged against his client due to his civil disputes with former partner Sanjay Punamiya and others, at their behest. Muralidhar had claimed that the impugned communication or order ‘smacked of malice in law’.

Muralidhar had argued that BJP MLA Prashant Bamb had in July last year through ‘calling attention motion,’ in state legislative assembly had sought transfer of seven cases to SIT, to which assurance was given by Home Minister Devendra Fadnavis and impugned communication was issued by home department in September, last year.

The ten-member SIT headed by Additional DGP (CID) Prashant Burude was constituted and it was asked to submit a report within three months. The HC, in its February 14 order, had observed that impugned communication “does not indicate any reason whatsoever for constituting the SIT except for referring to the proceedings that took place on the floor of the Legislative Assembly and the assurance given by the Home Minister in response.”

Justice Chandurkar had also pointed out that a statement was made during the debate in the Assembly over orders passed by the court in other petitions filed by Agarwal. It had noted that such comments during debate in the Assembly were barred by its rules and that its ‘Member is expected not to refer to any matter of fact which is under adjudication by a court of law.’