HC dismisses former VVCMC official’s plea against ‘illegal’ arrest

A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad said that the petition was “devoid of merits” and observed that the ED had “sufficient tangible material” to arrest him

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by Y Shiva Reddy, former deputy director, town planning, in the Vasai-Virar City Municipal Corporation (VVCMC), claiming his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money-laundering case was illegal, and seeking his release from custody.

Bombay High Court (HT Photo)

A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad said that Reddy’s petition was “devoid of merits” and observed that the ED had “sufficient tangible material” to arrest him.

The ED had booked Reddy in a money-laundering case based on four FIRs filed by the Mira Bhayander–Vasai Virar police over the construction of 41 unauthorised buildings. Among the main accused in the case, Reddy was arrested on August 13, 2025, along with former VVCMC commissioner Anil Pawar and two others. Reddy had moved the high court, claiming his ‘illegal arrest’ violated his fundamental rights.

The FIRs that preceded Reddy’s arrest pertained to the illegal construction of 41 buildings in Vasai east on a 60-acre plot, using forged permissions and fabricated documents on land reserved for a sewage treatment plant and dumping ground. On July 8, 2024, the high court had ordered their demolition. They were razed in February 2025, affecting 2,500 families.

In mid-2025, searches were conducted at Reddy’s residences in Hyderabad and Mumbai. “Along with property documents, unaccounted cash of ₹8.23 crore and diamond-studded jewellery valued at ₹23.28 crores were seized by the ED,” the high court noted.

Reddy, however, contended that no predicate offence was attributed to him in the first four FIRs, which concerned illegal construction by developers between 2013 and 2021. He said the allegations against him were made in an FIR in 2025 for allegedly taking bribes for granting development permissions. According to him, the ED cannot first register an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and then try to establish a predicate offence to validate its actions.

Reddy contended that at the time of his arrest, neither his role nor the proceeds of crime were identified. The alleged proceeds of crime, he said, were quantified for the first time in the ED’s counter-affidavit at ₹51.77 crore between January 13, 2022 and July 28, 2025. “This is allegedly for issuance of construction permissions, but it has no nexus with the subject matter of the earlier four FIRs relating to illegal construction of 41 buildings between 2013 to 2021,” he stated.

The bench, however, said: “The petitioner’s (Reddy) contention that prior arraignment of the petitioner in the first four FIRs is necessary to attract the PMLA is misconceived. Such a construction cannot be accepted as it would defeat the statutory scheme of the PMLA.”

Additional Solicitor-General Anil Singh told the court that a large cartel including Reddy, architects, liasioners, developers and other VVCMC officials were responsible for illegal construction and large-scale corruption in VVCMC. He said that Reddy had “not only turned a blind eye to the illegal constructions, but protected them in lieu of a fixed rate for bribes”.