Bombay HC reserves order on plea seeking central probe against Uddhav Thackeray, family – India Today

The petitioner alleges that while Thackerays was in power between 2019 and 2022, they diverted money to their mouthpieces — ‘Saamna’ and ‘Marmik, which Uddhav’s lawyer said was an assumption.

Former Maharashtra chief minister Uddhav Thackeray (File Photo)

By Vidya : The Maharashtra government told the Bombay High Court that a preliminary enquiry (PE) against the former Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray and his family by the Economic Offence Wing (EOW) of Mumbai police was already underway. The hearing on Thursday pertained to the plea of Mumbai resident Gauri Bhide, who has sought a probe by the central agencies.

The court reserved its order on roping in central agencies into the investigation against Uddhav and his family.

ALSO READ | Uddhav Thackeray backstabbed us, so we wanted revenge: Devendra Fadnavis

As per the petitioner, while Thackeray was in power between 2019 and 2022, they diverted money to their publications like the newspaper ‘Saamna’ and magazine ‘Marmik, which Uddhav’s lawyer said was an assumption. Bhide’s plea sought a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) to conduct “thorough and impartial” investigations into the alleged disproportionate assets of former Maharashtra chief minister and Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray and his family.

The plea states that Bhide is inspired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s fight against corruption, and she has annexed documents as exhibits to her petition “which elaborate the way in which corruption has taken place and huge properties and assets have been accumulated illegally” by Uddhav Thackeray and his family.

ALSO READ | Times change: Uddhav Thackeray’s veiled dare to Devendra Fadnavis

Advocates Aspi Chinoy and Joel Carlos, appearing for Uddhav Thackeray and his son Aaditya Thackeray, opposed the submission made by government pleader Aruna Pai that this statement should be taken on record.

Chinoy said, “Whatever they are doing they can go ahead. There is no need to record it. This is an abuse of process and there is no nexus between the two issues.”

The bench of Justices DS Thakur and Valmiki Sa Menezes, said, “Nothing will come out of that. You can go ahead with your preliminary enquiry.”

On Thursday, Bhide said that the court should issue an order for an investigation in matters like former Mumbai police commissioner Param Bir Singh’s case against then home minister of Maharashtra, Anil Deshmukh. Earlier, Bhide had handed over a complaint to the Mumbai police commissioner but she stated that there was no communication from the commissioner’s office.

During the hearing, Bhide alleged that she was not apprised of any development in the investigation. Pai, however, said that it was only PE and there was no obligation to inform the complainant.

ALSO READ | ‘No Shiv Sena left’: Narayan Rane claims 4 Uddhav faction MLAs ready to switch sides

Chinoy, on the other hand, raised issues over the maintainability of the plea and briefly went through the facts. He said “It is a laid down procedure that if the police do not register a case, then they should go to the Magistrate’s court. The only exemption carved out is if the person against whom the investigation is sought is an influential person, then they can approach the high court. The Thackerays are not in power for the last many months and are not capable of influencing the investigation.”

Chinoy harped on words, such as “might have” used in the plea while levelling allegations and said, “How can the assumption be made that there is a diversion of money, corruption?” Bhide had alleged that while Thackeray was in power between 2019 and 2022, they diverted money to their publications like the newspaper ‘Saamna’ and magazine ‘Marmik’.

Chinoy further submitted, “There have to be facts and the courts have to be satisfied. While in this PIL there are no facts but conjectures. Not one of them is a material fact. There is nothing to invoke your honours extraordinary jurisdiction powers.”

Advocate Ashok Mundargi, representing Thackeray’s wife Rashmi and son Tejas, said that “There has to be a cognisable offence. There is no foundation that is laid before the court. There is only suspicion, and it is of no value.”

On October 22, the bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Abhay Ahuja had recused from hearing Bhide’s PIL, so the plea came afresh before the present bench.