Disposed

Pratap Sarnaik v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Sept 2014CRPIL/51/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the petitioner sought registration of an FIR and sanction for prosecution against the Commissioner of Thane Municipal Corporation under the PCA, 1988, alleging corruption in town planning concessions. The Court disposed of the petition noting the authority had refused sanction, making a separate petition necessary to challenge it, and dismissed other prayers based on affidavits showin

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to file a separate petition to challenge the refusal to grant sanction; all other contentions kept open.

Pratap Sarnaik Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Corruption | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

910-crpil-51-2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.51 OF 2013

¶4

Pratap Baburao Sarnaik...Petitioner
vs.
The State of Maharashtra
and Others...Respondents

¶5

Mr. Shrihari Aney, Senior Counsel with Mr. S.
Mr. Oka and Mr. Sagar Joshi i/b. S.V.
Dhakros, for the Petitioner.

¶6

Mrs. A.S. Pai, APP for the State

¶7

Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior counsel i/b. Mr.
A.N. Jakhadi, for Respondent No.4.

¶8

P.C:

¶9

1. Heard learned senior counsel Mr. Shirish

¶10

Gupte, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

¶11

2.By this petition, filed under Article 226

¶12

of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is

¶13

seeking an appropriate writ order and direction
directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to register an

1/6

Vishal Parekar

910-crpil-51-2013

F.I.R. pursuant to the complaint filed by him

¶18

against respondent No.4 in which he has alleged

¶19

that an offence punishable under Section 7 of the

¶20

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been
committed by respondent No.4 and further seeking
direction to proceed with the investigation in
accordance with law. He is also seeking an
appropriate writ, order directing respondent No.1
to grant sanction to prosecute respondent No.4

¶21

for the offence punishable under the said Act
and, lastly, he is seeking an appropriate writ
order and direction directing respondent No.1 to
initiate inquiry against respondent No.4 for the
allegations which have been made by him in the
complaint which is annexed to the petition
(Exhibit A).

¶22

3.A preliminary objection is raised by the

¶23

learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
No.4 regarding maintainability of the Writ

2/6

Vishal Parekar

910-crpil-51-2013

Petition as a Public Interest Litigation. It is
submitted that the petitioner has a personal
vendetta against respondent No.4 on account of
various steps which he had taken as the
Commissioner of Thane Municipal Corporation
against the petitioner who, in turn, is a
builder. It is, therefore, submitted that the
petitioner can file a Writ Petition but the
present petition which is filed in the form of a
Public Interest Litigation, can not be
entertained by this Court.

¶28

4. On the other hand, learned senior counsel

¶29

Mr. Aney, appearing on behalf of the petitioner,
submitted that the petitioner is a member of the
Vidhan Parishad who is representing Thane city
and therefore he is concerned with the various
decisions which are taken by the Commissioner of
Thane Municipal Corporation, which directly

¶30

affects the citizens of Thane city.

3/6

Vishal Parekar

910-crpil-51-2013

5. In our view, without going to the

¶35

question of maintainability of F.I.R., the

¶36

petition can be disposed of finally at the stage

¶37

of admission, itself. The grievance of the

¶38

petitioner is that when respondent No.4 was the
Commissioner of Thane Municipal Corporation, he
had renovated the Town Planning Department of
Thane Municipal Corporation and this was done,
according to him, with the assistance of various

¶39

builders who, in turn, had been given some
concession while awarding penalty for extra
construction done. A private complaint was sought
to be filed by him, however, it could not be
filed on account of the judgment of the Apex

¶40

Court in the case of “Anil Kumar and Others vs. M.K. Aiyappa and Another”¹ .

¶41

6. It is an admitted position that now the

¶42

concerned authority has informed the petitioner

¶43

that sanction to prosecute respondent No.4 cannot

¶44

(2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 705.

4/6

Vishal Parekar

910-crpil-51-2013

be granted and the said order has been passed
recently after the petition has been filed. In
our view, since sanction has not been given by
the authority, the petitioner will have to file
separate petition if he wishes to challenge the
said order.

¶49

7. Secondly, in our view, the ratio of the
judgment in “Anil Kumar vs. M.K. Aiyappa”(supra)

¶50

and more particularly the observation made in
paragraph No.4, the Apex Court has in terms held
that, even at the pre-cognizance stage, sanction
is necessary for ordering investigation against
public servant and as such therefore, the prayer
clause (i) can not be granted at this stage.

¶51

8. So far as, prayer clause (iii) is

¶52

concerned, two affidavits dated 1st August, 2014
and 26th August, 2014 have been filed. In the
first affidavit, it is held that it is necessary

5/6

Vishal Parekar

910-crpil-51-2013

to hold a discrete inquiry in the allegation of
corruption made. However, in the second affidavit

¶57

it is stated that after conducting an inquiry it
was found that there is no substance in the
allegations made against respondent No.4. In
view of these two affidavits, the question of
granting prayer clause (iii) does not arise.

¶58

9. Petition is, therefore, disposed of with

¶59

liberty to the petitioner to file a separate
petition for challenging the refusal to grant
sanction and for the other consequential prayers.
All the contentions raised in this petition are
kept open. Petition is disposed of.

¶60

6/6

¶61

Vishal Parekar

Pratap Sarnaik v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratap Sarnaik v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Viom Networks Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Raghunath Murlidhar Khade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pramod Pandurang Pisal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Preeti Ashish Jaisawal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Amart Bhai Harji Bhai Patel Vs Authorized Officer and 10 Others

Grace Mass Housing Corporation and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.