HC stays home dept order on SIT against city builder

Bombay HC stays home dept order for SIT probe against builder Agarwal, filed by former top cop Singh, citing ongoing investigations satisfactory.

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Wednesday stayed a home department directive regarding formation of a special investigation team (SIT) to probe seven cases against city builder Shyamsunder Agarwal, who had filed two extortion complaints against former Mumbai police commissioner Param Bir Singh. The court noted that since ongoing investigation in the seven cases was not shown to be unsatisfactory, there was no basis for transferring the cases to an SIT. The order was issued pursuant to a promise made by deputy chief minister Devendra Fadnavis in the assembly.

HT Image

Agarwal, in his petition, challenged communication dated September 21, 2023, wherein a deputy secretary in the home department instructed the director general of police to constitute an SIT to probe various offences against him. Senior advocate Dr S Muralidhar, who represented the builder, sought a stay on the order contending that the criminal cases arose out his client’s civil disputes with his former partner Sanjay Punamiya and others. The cases were being investigated by jurisdictional police officers and there was no legal or factual justification whatsoever for constituting the SIT, he argued in court.

The senior advocate said that it had not been indicated that the ongoing investigation was not fair or impartial and therefore there was no reason for issuance of the order. The order smacked of malice and appeared to be a handy work of Punamiya, who raked up the issue of an MCOCA case against Agarwal for a debate in the assembly. This was done through BJP MLA Prashant Bamb, who sought transfer of the seven cases to an SIT, said the advocate. The cases do not include the one wherein Agarwal has been booked under the MCOCA.

The state government as well as Punamiya opposed the petition, claiming that several other MLAs participated in the debate and it could not be said that Punamiya colluded with the BJP MLA to have the SIT constituted in absence of any material whatsoever. They contended that since the home department was competent to issue a directive for constitution of SITs, there was no need for the court to intervene in the matter.

The argument, however, failed to impress the bench of justices AS Chandurkar and Jitendra Jain, mainly on the ground that the order of November 2023 did not indicate any reasons whatsoever for transferring the cases to the SIT, except for referring to the proceedings in the assembly.

The judges also noticed that during the debate in the house, a statement was made on orders passed by the court in other petitions filed by Agarwal. “The comments with regard to the interim orders passed by this court when considered along with Rule 34(2)(i) of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly rules indicates that there is a limitation on the debate to be undertaken in the House and that a Member is expected not to refer to any matter of fact which is under adjudication by a court of law,” said the judges.

The judges also considered that though the debate was about cases registered under the MCOCA, the case with MCOCA charges was not transferred to the SIT. Thus, the court said, “the entire premise of constituting the SIT and referring other seven cases not registered under the (MCOCA) Act of 1999 changes the complexion of the matter.”

Noting that the ongoing investigation in the seven cases was neither shown to be unsatisfactory, partisan nor that it was not proceeding in a proper direction,” the court stayed the directive regarding transfer of seven cases to the SIT.