HC refuses to discharge senior IRS officer booked by CBI

The CBI alleges the 58-year-old IRS officer conspired with the partners of M/s Jay Construction Company and vacated a stay order on construction at the plot on Chapel Road issued by him

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Tuesday dismissed a senior Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer’s petition seeking discharge from a case registered against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for allegedly releasing a plot of land at Chapel Road in Bandra West, an enemy property, in favour of a builder in 2005-06.

HT Image

“There is prima-facie material against the applicant to take the allegations made against him to trial,” said a single judge bench of justice Sandeep Marne while dismissing the petition filed by Dinesh Singh, who was working as the Custodian of Enemy Properties (CEP) in Mumbai at the relevant time.

As per the Enemy Property Act, 1968, property in India owned by Pakistani nationals is designated as enemy property, and CEPs are empowered to appropriate such property.

The CBI alleges the 58-year-old IRS officer conspired with the partners of M/s Jay Construction Company and vacated a stay order on construction at the plot on Chapel Road issued by him. He is also accused of withdrawing the certificate declaring half the property – the share of Aziz Yacoob Tabani, who had migrated to Pakistan in 1969 – as vested with the Custodian of Enemy Properties.

Singh approached high court after a special CBI court rejected his discharge plea on July 28, 2023. He sought discharge from the case claiming he was falsely implicated and there was no material to proceed against him.

Singh said he had issued a stop work notice to the developer, Jay Construction Company, which had purchased the property including the share of Aziz Tabani, although it fell under the purview of the Enemy Property Act. He further contended that he had acted bonafidely in withdrawing the stop work notice and cancelling the vesting certificate of Tabani’s share after obtaining legal opinion from the central government, and therefore could not be held liable for the decisions.

The high court, however, refused to accept the contention. Justice Marne noticed that within a fortnight after taking charge as CEP in Mumbai in November 2005, Singh issued a notice stating the transaction for purchasing Aziz Tabani’s share by the developer was null and void and asked the developer to stop work at the site.

However, after receiving a response from the developer, he started seeking legal opinion from government counsels and “appeared to have taken upon himself the task of invalidating the said (vesting) certificate” though the actions were based on previous legal opinions.

“Prima-facie, it appears that the applicant has showed zeal and enthusiasm in withdrawal of the certificate dated 17 February 2005,” said justice Marne. “Therefore, the allegations in the FIR that the said actions are taken by him by entering into criminal conspiracy with the partners of M/s Jay Construction Co need to be tested by taking the trial to its logical end,” the court added and rejected Singh’s discharge plea.