Bombay HC quashes former PMC chief’s refusal to probe ₹2,000 crore assets case against former city engineer

Making strong observations, the court said corruption “corrodes the moral fabric of society” and poses a serious threat to constitutional governance

The Bombay High Court has quashed the 2019 decision of the then Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) commissioner refusing approval for an open inquiry into alleged disproportionate assets worth ₹2,000 crore held by former city engineer Prashant Waghmare.

The court further held that the role of the competent authority is limited to determining whether the preliminary material discloses a prima facie case. (HT)

Setting aside the refusal, the court held that the competent authority had exceeded its jurisdiction by assessing the merits of the case at a preliminary stage, thereby foreclosing the investigation sought by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB).

The bench clarified that protection under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be invoked to stall an inquiry into allegations of disproportionate assets. It also ruled that administrative authorities cannot conduct a “mini-trial” while considering approval for such probes.

Making strong observations, the court said corruption “corrodes the moral fabric of society” and poses a serious threat to constitutional governance.

“Corruption by public servants not only erodes the moral fabric of society but is also harmful to the national economy and national interest. Persons in high office, by misusing their power due to corruption, can cause considerable damage to the economy, national interest, and the country’s image,” the bench observed.

The court further held that the role of the competent authority is limited to determining whether the preliminary material discloses a prima facie case. “The competent authority has no power to usurp the functions of the authorised enquiry officer under Section 17 of the PC Act or the authority to grant or refuse sanction to prosecute under Section 19,” the bench of Justice Ranjitsingh Raja Bhonsale and Justice A. S. Gadkari said in its April 2 order.

The petition was filed by complainant Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire, who challenged the PMC commissioner’s orders dated April 16 and April 25, 2019. He sought directions to the ACB to conduct an open inquiry into alleged corrupt practices by Waghmare, as detailed in his complaint dated May 18, 2016, and also sought registration of an FIR.

According to the petition, Waghmare, who joined the PMC as an engineer in 1994 and later served as city engineer from August 2003, allegedly amassed assets worth ₹2,000 crore disproportionate to his known sources of income. It was alleged that he routed illicit funds through family members, associates, and companies linked to them.

Following the complaint, enquiry officer Sanjay Patange sought permission to initiate an open inquiry, citing the seriousness of the allegations and lack of cooperation. The ACB superintendent, in a letter dated January 31, 2019, recommended seeking prior approval from the competent authority.

However, the request was rejected in April 2019 by the then PMC commissioner, Saurabh Rao, after a hearing. Based on this decision, the ACB closed the confidential enquiry on June 28, 2019. Gambhire also stated that information sought under the Right to Information Act was denied on grounds of confidentiality, and his appeal was rejected.

Senior advocate Rajiv Chavan, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the commissioner’s refusal was illegal and amounted to overreach, as it effectively involved conducting an investigation—something that falls within the ACB’s domain under Section 17 of the PC Act.

Advocate Sanjiv Kadam, appearing for the PMC commissioner, contended that the authority had acted within its jurisdiction and relied on government resolutions empowering it to grant or refuse sanction.

Reacting to the ruling, current PMC Commissioner Naval Kishore Ram told Hindustan Times, “We will examine the court’s order, and it will be followed in its letter and spirit. The officer in question has already retired from the PMC.”

Rejecting the PMC’s stand, the court held that the impugned orders were “without jurisdiction” and could not be sustained. It ruled that prior approval under Section 17A was not required in cases involving disproportionate assets and directed the ACB authorities to proceed in accordance with law.

Despite multiple attempts, Prashant Waghmare and former PMC commissioner Saurabh Rao did not respond to calls.