Uddhav Thackeray, Family Get Relief In Disproportionate Assets Case As Bombay HC Dismisses CBI, ED Probe Plea

The Bombay High Court has granted relief to Uddhav Thackeray and his family in an alleged disproportionate assets case.

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday granted relief to former Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray and his family in an alleged disproportionate assets case. A PIL was filed before the HC, urging that the matter be probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or Enforcement Directorate (ED). While rejecting the PIL, the Bombay HC imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 on petitioners Gauri Bhide and Abhay Bhide.

The plea also named Uddhav's wife Rashmi and son Aditya.

According to Live Law, the court found no evidence or basis of the plea to order a CBI or an ED probe. "On a reading of the complaint it is clear that the petitioners are only speculating of the sudden rise and prosperity index of the private respondents from their humble beginning and therefore entertain a suspicion that the lifestyle of the private respondent could only be attributed to the corrupt practices of the BMC," the division bench of Justices Dhiraj Thakur and Valmiki Menezes was quoted as saying by Live Law.

Previously, the Maharashtra Government had informed the High Court that the Economic Offences Wing had started a preliminary inquiry based on Bhide's complaint. Bhide's PIL had requested the CBI and ED to take over the investigation of her complaint filed with the Mumbai police. According to Live Law, the petitioners accused Uddhav, his wife Rashmi, and their son Aditya of owning "huge properties in a metro city like Mumbai and in Raigad district, which may run into crores", without disclosing their official source of income.

Thackeray's counsel Aspi Chinoy challenged the maintainability of the PIL, stating that the Code of Criminal Procedure provides the procedure if no action is taken on the complaint. He argued that the procedure for criminal investigation cannot be deviated from unless there are exceptional circumstances. On merit, he claimed that the petition did not provide specific facts to initiate criminal proceedings. Chinoy also contended that the profits earned by Shiv Sena's publications, Saamana and Marmik, compared to other newspapers, were not sufficient grounds to commence criminal proceedings.

Senior advocate Ashok Mundargi, representing Rashmi Thackeray, argued that central agencies cannot be involved from the outset. He claimed that there must be a prima facie cognizable offence, which is not apparent in this case. Mundargi also stated that prayers based on suspicion have no value. The petitioners, Gauri and her father Abhay, are residents of Dadar, a stronghold of the Shiv Sainiks for several years. During the emergency, they briefly printed Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray's weekly. Their petition also questions land plots given by the Maharashtra Government-owned CIDCO for a trust, Prabodhan Prakashan, which is the owner and publisher of the Saamana newspaper.