E-Paper
SC refuses to stay ACB probe into ₹2,000-cr disproportionate assets case against ex-PMC city engineer
The bench was hearing an SLP arising from the Bombay high court’s April 2, 2026 order in a Criminal Writ Petition
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with a Bombay high court order reviving the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) probe into an alleged ₹2,000-crore disproportionate assets case involving former Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) city engineer Prashant Waghmare.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Vinod Chandran granted Waghmare permission to file a special leave petition (SLP) but refused to grant any interim relief against the high court’s ruling. The bench was hearing an SLP arising from the Bombay high court’s April 2, 2026 order in a Criminal Writ Petition.
In its April 16 order, a copy of which HT reviewed on Tuesday, the apex court said, “Permission to file the special leave petition is granted. However, we find no good ground or reason to interfere with the impugned judgment/order passed by the High Court. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
In its April 2 ruling, the Bombay high court quashed the 2019 decision by the PMC commissioner to refuse sanction for an open inquiry into the allegations. The court held that the competent authority exceeded its jurisdiction by assessing the merits of the case at a preliminary stage, effectively stalling the investigation sought by the ACB.
The bench clarified that protection under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act cannot be invoked to block an inquiry into disproportionate assets. It also ruled that administrative authorities cannot conduct a “mini-trial” while deciding whether to grant approval for such probes.
Making strong observations, the court stated, “Corruption by public servants not only erodes the moral fabric of society but is also harmful to the national economy and national interest. By misusing their power, people in high office can cause considerable damage to the economy, national interests and the country’s image.”
The court further held that the role of the competent authority is limited to examining whether the available 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 said.
The petition was filed by complainant Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire, who challenged the PMC commissioner’s orders of April 16 and April 25, 2019, refusing approval for an inquiry. Gambhire sought directions to the ACB to conduct an open probe into alleged corrupt practices by Waghmare, as detailed in his May 18, 2016 complaint, 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 funds through family members, associates and linked entities.
Following the complaint, inquiry 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 January 31, 2019 letter, recommended seeking prior approval from the competent authority.
However, the then PMC commissioner, Saurabh Rao, rejected the request in April 2019 after a hearing. Based on this decision, the ACB closed the confidential inquiry 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.
Repeated attempts to contact Waghmare for comment were unsuccessful.
