Bombay HC rejects PIL seeking probe against Sharad Pawar, Supriya Sule, Ajit Pawar over ‘illegal’ permissions for Lavasa project
The Bombay High Court noted that the petitioner had earlier filed a similar plea which was disposed of in 2022 on grounds of delay, since it was filed nearly a decade after the Lavasa project commenced.
On December 16, the high court concluded the hearing and reserved its judgment by orally observing that the petitioner was required to provide sufficient material to support his claims, which was not the case. (File)
The Bombay High Court Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought directions to register a police case or launch a CBI probe against Nationalist Congress Party (SP) leaders Sharad Pawar and Supriya Sule, Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister and NCP leader Ajit Pawar, and others over alleged illegal permissions given to build a private hill station at Lavasa in Pune.
The division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A Ankhad was hearing a plea by lawyer Nanasaheb Jadhav. On December 16, the high court concluded the hearing and reserved its judgment by orally observing that the petitioner was required to provide sufficient material to support his claims, which was not the case.
The high court also noted that the petitioner had earlier filed a similar plea, which was disposed of in 2022 on grounds of delay, since it was filed nearly a decade after the project commenced.
Petitioner claims police took no action
In his fresh criminal PIL filed in 2023, Jadhav stated that he had in December 2018 filed a complaint on the matter to the Pune Police Commissioner, who forwarded the same to the Pune Rural Police. Jadhav added that in May 2022, when he filed a Right To Information (RTI) application seeking details from the police about the action taken on his complaint, he learnt that no First Information Report (FIR) had been registered.
Thereafter, in the same month, as per the plea, he sent the same complaint to the Pune Rural Superintendent of Police (SP) under Section 154 (providing information in cognizable cases) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), but no action was taken. Jadhav claimed that the police refused to register an FIR as the complaint involved big politicians and officers, and therefore sought a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Jadhav claimed that there was no limitation for lodging a complaint with the police if the offence committed attracts a maximum punishment of seven years or more.
In September 2023, another bench of the high court told Jadhav that he could file a private complaint before a magistrate if the FIR was not registered by the police, and remarked that political pressure may influence the police force, but not the magistrate.
Story continues below this ad
‘Allegations identical to those made in previous PIL’
Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy and advocate Joel Carlos for Sharad Pawar argued that allegations made in the present PIL were identical to the earlier PIL that was disposed of and, hence, the current plea was also to be rejected.
However, the bench had observed “personal interest” in the project by Sharad Pawar and Sule as well as “exertion of influence and clout” by them in the project. The court had also observed that Ajit Pawar, who was then the state irrigation minister, “failed to disclose the direct or indirect interest and was found to be remiss in his duty only to that extent”.
Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions.
Expertise & Authority
Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage.
Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in:
Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include:
Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes).
Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty).
Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict.
Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability.
Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges.
Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More
3 min read
