The Bombay High Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict on a public interest litigation seeking a CBI investigation against NCP (SP) chief Sharad Pawar and his family members over alleged irregular permissions granted to the Lavasa hill station project, while indicating that it was inclined to dismiss the plea.
A division bench headed by Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad observed that the petitioner, advocate Nanasaheb Jadhav, had failed to point out any legal provision under which a court exercising civil jurisdiction could direct the police to register a First Information Report. The judges said the petition appeared liable to be rejected, but decided to reserve the order to allow both sides to place relevant case laws on record.
The PIL sought directions to the Central Bureau of Investigation to register a criminal case against Sharad Pawar, his daughter and Baramati MP Supriya Sule, and his nephew Ajit Pawar, who is Maharashtra’s deputy chief minister. The allegations relate to purportedly illegal permissions granted for the development of the Lavasa hill station project in Pune district.
During the hearing, the bench recalled that in February 2022, the high court had declined to interfere with an earlier petition filed by Jadhav challenging the special permissions granted to Lavasa. While dismissing that plea, the court had noted that there appeared to be some exertion of influence and clout by Sharad Pawar and his daughter, but did not grant any relief.
In the fresh PIL filed in 2023, Jadhav contended that he had approached the Pune police commissioner in December 2018 with a complaint seeking a probe into the matter, but no action was taken by the police. He argued that a CBI investigation was therefore necessary.
Sharad Pawar, however, moved an intervention application in March this year opposing the petition. He submitted that the petitioner was repeatedly raising the same or similar allegations through successive proceedings, despite earlier petitions having failed.
The high court has not indicated when it will pronounce its judgment.
