The Bombay High Court has issued a notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) following a petition from Suraj Chavan, a Shiv Sena (Uddhav Thackeray faction) member. The petition challenges his arrest and subsequent custody by the ED concerning a money laundering case linked to the alleged “Khichdi Scam.” The court, led by Justices Revati Mohite Dere and P.K. Chavan, has scheduled the next hearing for November 14.
Suraj Chavan, who is said to be close to Aaditya Thackeray, was apprehended on January 17 for purported discrepancies in distributing khichdi to migrant workers via the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The controversy centers on claims that certain contractors, notably Force One Multi Services and Sahyadri Refreshment, obtained supply contracts from the BMC at an inflated price of Rs 33 per packet (plus GST), supplying substandard 100-gram packets instead of the mandated 300 grams.
The FIR against these contractors alleges that their actions led to a financial loss of Rs 6.37 crore to the BMC, with Chavan accused of using his political influence to aid in securing these contracts. According to reports from the ED, the proceeds from this scheme, totaling Rs 1.35 crore, were funneled by Chavan into various personal ventures, including real estate and agricultural investments.
Chavan has contended in his High Court petition that his arrest and the ensuing remand orders lack sufficient grounds and infringe upon his fundamental rights as enshrined in Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. He argues that the allegations are speculative and not supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, Chavan claims that his detention was procedurally flawed, highlighting that he was not provided written reasons for his arrest, nor was he summoned before being taken into custody, contrary to what is stipulated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
In his plea, Chavan asserts that he was not directly named in any scheduled offense under the PMLA, thus questioning the legal basis for his arrest. He seeks the High Court’s intervention to quash the arrest order, remand proceedings, and all related actions, labeling them as arbitrary and lacking legal justification.
As the court prepares for the upcoming hearing, the case continues to attract attention, touching on issues of governance, accountability, and the legal processes involved in political and bureaucratic interactions.
