Court rejects governor’s nod to prosecute Chavan
ADARSH HOUSING CASE Congress Maha chief gets relief from Bombay HC which held that the material presented by CBI could not be converted into ‘credible evidence’ against exCM
Bombay high court on Friday set aside sanction granted by the Maharashtra governor to prosecute former chief minister and Congress leader Ashok Chavan in Adarsh housing society case.
It’s the second relief for the Congress in as many days. On Thursday a special court acquitted all accused, including former telecom minister A Raja, in the 2G spectrum allocation case.
Reacting to the court’s ruling, Chavan, who is state Congress chief, said: “Truth has prevailed. I have full faith in the judiciary. The governor’s order was politically motivated.”
It was alleged that leaders from political parties, bureaucrats and ex-servicemen conspired to get flats at cheap rates in the Adarsh Housing Society, a prime property located in Mumbai’s southern Colaba, originally constructed for the welfare of war widows.
Chavan has been accused of criminal conspiracy and criminal misconduct for granting additional floor space index (FSI) to Adarsh housing society in lieu of flats for relatives.
The bench comprising justices Ranjit More and Sadhana jadhav quashed the February 2016 sanction given by governor C Vidyasagar Rao to prosecute the former CM.
The bench held that the CBI failed to present fresh evidence before Rao while seeking the sanction to prosecute Chavan and the material presented by it could not be converted into “credible evidence” against the Congress leader.
Rao in February last year had overturned the December 2013 April 19, 2013: Justice JA Patil Inquiry Commission report is submitted to the government August 19, 2013: CBI forwards the report to the offices of the SP, ACB and its Mumbai branch
December 17, 2013: Governor K Shankarnarayan refuses sanction to prosecute Ashok Chavan December 20, 2013: Commission’s report is tabled in the assembly January 15, 2014: CBI submits application in trial Court seeking to remove Chavan from list of accused January 18, 2014: Trial court rejects CBI’s application
May 25, 2014: CBI files criminal revision application in Bombay HC for quashing of the trial court order
decision of the then Governor K Shankarnarayanan, who had rejected the CBI’s plea for sanction to prosecute Chavan, who was forced to resign as chief minister after being implicated in the housing scam.
Such sanction from designated constitutional authorities is a mandatory prerequisite to prosecute public servants such as chief minister or former chief minister.
“The sanctioning authority is an independent (authority), which cannot allow itself to be influenced by any opinion. The ASG (additional solicitor general)’s argument cannot be entertained as it would amount to abuse of power,” the judges ruled on a challenge filed by Chavan.
The Congress leader contended March 27, 2014: CBI chargesheet in trial court says Chavan not involved in benami transactions
June 19, 2014: CBI filed second supplementary chargesheet, tells trial court investigation was over November 19, 2014: Bombay HC dismisses the application December 15, 2014: Chavan files a criminal application recalling the November 19 HC order, is dismissed on March 4, 2015 by the HC
October 8, 2015: CBI sends fresh proposal seeking sanction to prosecute Chavan
November 4, 2016: Governor C Vidyasagar Rao, appointed after BJP comes to power, sanctions the CBI to prosecute Chavan
MUMBAI:The
that the decision to review the December 2013 decision of the then governor was politically motivated and biased, and there was no additional material warranting review of the decision.
It was also argued on his behalf that the February 2016 order was motivated by change in political circumstances and not by any change in material aspects of the case.
ASG Anil Singh had claimed that the report of Justice JA Patil Commission and certain observations made by high court while rejecting Chavan’s petition challenging the trial court’s decision to reject CBI’s plea seeking deletion of his name from the array of accused persons were “additional material” as envisaged under relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and therefore the governor was justified in granting sanction to prosecute the former chief minister.
“There is no question of malafide exercise of power,” he said refuting allegations that the governor’s decision was politically motivated and biased.
Singh tried to justify the review of the December 2013 order saying it was passed when the inquiry commission’s report was not available for consideration.
Besides, he had said, the December 2013 order was also without “the aid and advice of state’s council of ministers” suggesting that the February 2016 review was based on the “aid and advice” of the Devendra Fadnavis ministry.