Bombay HC to hear Singh’s plea seeking CBI probe today – Times of India

Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Tuesday said it would hear on Wednesday a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by former Mumbai police chief Param Bir Singh for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against state home minister Anil Deshmukh for alleged “corrupt malpractices.”
Singh had made allegations against Deshmukh in an 8-page letter to chief minister Uddhav Thackeray on March 20. He alleged that the minister had met with subordinate police officers, including suspended assistant police inspector Sachin Waze, and asked for collection of Rs 100 crore.Deshmukh had denied all the allegations in the letter.
Singh’s counsel Vikram Nankani and Sunny Punamiya mentioned the matter before a bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Girish Kulkarni and sought an urgent hearing. Singh wants urgent orders for “safe custody of the CCTV footage” outside the minister’s residence, before any of it is lost.
There were two more PILs filed, one by Divesh Vora, who says he is an activist and the other by Mohan Bhide, a senior citizen, chartered accountant and a teacher and managing director of Bhide Education Pvt Ltd, who have also sought an independent probe into allegations made by Singh against Deshmukh.
Vora’s PIL also sought a CBI inquiry into Singh’s allegations against Deshmukh and safe-keeping of CCTV footage outside the minister’s house, but he also challenged the “constitutional” validity of the Maharashtra Police Act’s (2014) Section 22N(2) which gives the state allegedly unfettered powers to transfer police officers without sufficient reasons. Vora also challenged the validity of Singh’s transfer order dated March 17 as “illegal and arbitrary” and sought its stay as an interim relief till the PIL is finally decided.
The fourth petition, not a PIL, filed first in point of time, by city advocate Jaishri Patil for a probe against Deshmukh and Singh’s “role” based on the ex-police chief’s letter to the CM, came up before a bench of Justices S S Shinde and Manish Pitale. The bench questioned her “locus standi” (right to be heard) verbally, saying, “Prima facie we are of the opinion that such petitions were filed for popularity.” Advocate general Ashutosh Kumbhakoni also questioned the petition and later said the state would seek clubbing of all similar petitions.
The bench adjourned Patil’s petition to April 1.