Bombay High Court slams Sharad Pawar & family, finds polticial influence for Lavasa construction
28 Feb 2022 13:11:52
Mumbai, February 28: The Bombay High Court, despite finding irregularities and political influence by Sharad Pawar and his family members in extending largesse to Maharashtra's only private hill station project called Lavasa, dismissed the petition challenging the project on the ground of delay.
The challenge in petition was threefold. The first was with regards to validity of the amendments of relevant statutes and the introduction of 1996 Regulations. The second was that the statutory amendments would have pan-Maharashtra application and if its provisions, in any manner, adversely affect farmers. The other was in regard to the initiative taken to develop Lavasa Hill Station Project and whether any law has been breached in course of such development.
For project, not only State Government but also the legislative wing of the State acted in tandem to carve out benefits in favour of a class of persons having sound political connections. All these, at the cost of poor farmers, who were compelled to surrender their property rights for peanuts. It was contended that, in the bargain, it was favouritism, nepotism, illegality and arbitrariness that triumphed.
Observing that no farmer had approached the court against the project, therefore it can be assumed that they are / were happy with whatever bargain they were able to make, the bench said, "We feel a 'judicial hands-off' approach is perhaps best suited in the present case having regard to the intervening delay between alleged acts of violation of Constitutional guarantees and institution of this public interest litigation."
A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Girish Kulkarni, in a 68-page judgement on Saturday, observed that the script of the judgement could have been different had the petitioner been vigilant and "sought for redress with promptitude."
The bench was hearing a public interest litigation filed by advocate Nanasaheb Jadhav seeking to declare special permission granted by the Development Commissioner (Industries) to develop Lavasa as void, arbitrary, unreasonable, undue political favouritism, breach of trust and bad in law.
The challenge in petition was threefold. The first was with regards to validity of the amendments of relevant statutes and the introduction of 1996 Regulations. The second was that the statutory amendments would have pan-Maharashtra application and if its provisions, in any manner, adversely affect farmers. The other was in regard to the initiative taken to develop Lavasa Hill Station Project and whether any law has been breached in course of such development.
Also Read | Blow to Sharad Pawar! Samajwadi Party takes back the only ticket promised to them in UP elections!
The case of the petitioner was that Lavasa Hill Station Project, although was conceived on paper to promote tourism but in reality, resulted in advancing extraneous considerations including promotion of real estate business.
For project, not only State Government but also the legislative wing of the State acted in tandem to carve out benefits in favour of a class of persons having sound political connections. All these, at the cost of poor farmers, who were compelled to surrender their property rights for peanuts. It was contended that, in the bargain, it was favouritism, nepotism, illegality and arbitrariness that triumphed.
Also Read | BJP slams Patole over ‘Modi’ remark; Congress state chief says was not talking about PM
On Ajit Pawar's role in the case, the bench observed that he, by virtue of being the ex-officio chairman of Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation at the relevant time, had sanctioned the Lavasa Project. He was a part of the meeting which granted clearance to proposed dam that would aid in water supply to Lavasa. The bench noted that it was his 'solemn duty' to disclose his personal interest in the matter.
Observing that no farmer had approached the court against the project, therefore it can be assumed that they are / were happy with whatever bargain they were able to make, the bench said, "We feel a 'judicial hands-off' approach is perhaps best suited in the present case having regard to the intervening delay between alleged acts of violation of Constitutional guarantees and institution of this public interest litigation."