The Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed a public interest litigation that sought a Central Bureau of Investigation probe against senior NCP (SP) leader Sharad Pawar, his daughter and Baramati MP Supriya Sule, and his nephew, Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar, over alleged illegal permissions granted to the Lavasa hill station project in Pune district.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad held that the petitioner failed to establish any legal basis for the court to direct registration of a criminal case while exercising its civil jurisdiction. The bench noted that advocate Nanasaheb Jadhav, who filed the PIL, could not point to any provision that would empower the court to order the police to register a First Information Report in such circumstances.
Jadhav had sought a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to register a case against the Pawar family members, alleging that illegal permissions were granted for the construction of the Lavasa hill station project. According to the petition, the permissions amounted to misuse of influence and warranted a criminal investigation.
The petitioner also told the court that he had approached the Pune police commissioner in December 2018 with a complaint seeking a probe, but claimed no action was taken. On that basis, he urged the High Court to step in and order a CBI investigation.
The bench took note of the litigation history. In February 2022, the High Court had already declined to interfere in a petition by Jadhav that sought to have the special permissions granted to Lavasa declared illegal. While the court at that time observed that there appeared to be some exertion of influence and clout by Sharad Pawar and Supriya Sule, it had still refused to grant the relief sought.
The present PIL, filed in 2023, attempted to reopen the issue by seeking a criminal probe rather than a declaration on the legality of the permissions.
Earlier this year, Sharad Pawar moved an intervention application opposing the fresh PIL. He argued that the petitioner was repeatedly raising the same or substantially similar allegations through successive proceedings, despite earlier refusals by the court.
Accepting the objections on maintainability, the High Court dismissed the PIL, bringing an end to the latest attempt to seek a court-mandated CBI investigation into the Lavasa project approvals.
