The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL on Tuesday seeking an investigation into allegations of disproportionate assets held by former Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray and his family members.
A division bench of Justices Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Valimiki SA Menezes rejected the petitioner’s argument that the alleged corruption in the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and the sudden increase in the Thackeray family’s assets are linked.
The Court rejected the petition because there was no live link between the alleged corruption in BMC and the increase in the Thackeray family’s assets, and the petitioner was attempting to seek a roving investigation.
Gouri Bhide, the petitioner in person, claimed that despite the fact that Thackeray, his son Aditya, and wife Rashmi never disclosed any service, profession, or business as their official source of income, they own properties worth crores in Mumbai and Raigad districts.
Bhide further expressed astonishment that the Thackeray family’s periodicals ‘Marmik’ and ‘Saamna’ had a huge turnover of 42 crores and a profit of 11.5 crores during the COVID-19 lockdown, while other print media suffered losses.
Bhide claimed that she filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Mumbai Police, which was also forwarded to the Economic Offences Wing (EOW). However, no action was taken, and she was not kept up to date on the status of her complaint. As a result, she filed the PIL.
Bhide sought directions to the State to take cognizance of the complaint filed with Mumbai Police and that the respondent agencies to submit the status of their investigations every month to the court.
Senior Advocates Aspi Chinoy and Ashok Mundargi, representing the Thackeray family, argued that there is a hierarchy of officials and that proper procedure must be followed.
Chinoy contended that, while High Courts could intervene and initiate criminal proceedings, there was no reason to disregard the procedure.
Chinoy also stated that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances in the petition filed. Chinoy also stated that the fact that a paper publication was profitable did not imply that the publication was corrupt.
Mundargi added that there must be a cognizable offence for any court to intervene.
A complaint must be filed with the police station; if no action is taken, a private complaint must be filed before the Magistrate; if the Magistrate also does not take cognizance, it must be demonstrated that a person in power may influence the investigation; and only then can the High Court be approached.
The Mumbai Police Department announced in December 2022 that it had launched a preliminary investigation into the allegations.
Chief Public Prosecutor Aruna Pai informed the Court that the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) had launched a preliminary investigation into the petitioner’s allegations in the PIL.
The petitioner claimed that she was never informed of the investigation and requested that it be transferred to a Central Government agency.
