TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Orders FIR Against MHADA Officials for Financial Loss to State</h1> <h3>Kamlakar R. Shenoy Versus State of Maharashtra; Principal Secretary, Housing Department, Mantralaya, State of Maharashtra; Director General of Police Anti-Corruption Bureau, Mumbai; Commissioner of Police, Mumbai City; Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra Housing Area and Development Authority, Mumbai</h3> Kamlakar R. Shenoy Versus State of Maharashtra; Principal Secretary, Housing Department, Mantralaya, State of Maharashtra; Director General of Police ... Issues Involved:1. Alleged nexus between defaulting developers and MHADA officials.2. Failure to surrender surplus built-up area by developers.3. Alleged inaction by MHADA officials.4. Petitioner's request for registration of FIR.5. Legal obligations under DCR 33(7) and MHADA Act.6. Role of Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and Economic Offences Wing (EOW).7. Application of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.8. Judicial directives and observations.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Alleged Nexus Between Defaulting Developers and MHADA Officials:The petitioner alleges an unholy nexus between defaulting developers and officials of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), resulting in unlawful losses to the State's exchequer amounting to Rs. 40,000 crores. The developers failed to surrender surplus built-up area, which is the exclusive property of the State under the Development Control Regulation 33(7) (DCR).2. Failure to Surrender Surplus Built-up Area by Developers:Under DCR-33(7), developers are required to surrender surplus built-up area to MHADA. The petitioner obtained information under the Right to Information Act, revealing that out of 241 developers granted NOCs, 121 had not surrendered the surplus area. Despite repeated reminders, MHADA officials did not take steps to recover the property.3. Alleged Inaction by MHADA Officials:The petitioner contends that MHADA officials' willful acts of omission and commission caused wrongful loss to the State and gain to developers. The officials failed to recover the surplus area or take legal action against defaulting developers, despite being aware of the issue.4. Petitioner's Request for Registration of FIR:The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to register an FIR based on a complaint dated 1/6/2016. The petitioner alleges that MHADA officials' inaction amounts to negligence and intentional misconduct, causing significant financial loss to the State.5. Legal Obligations Under DCR 33(7) and MHADA Act:The Development Control Regulations (DCR) 33(7) and the MHADA Act, 1976, outline the obligations of developers to surrender surplus built-up area. The validity of Clause (4) of Appendix-III of DCR, 1991, which mandates this surrender, was upheld by the High Court and the Apex Court.6. Role of Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and Economic Offences Wing (EOW):The EOW forwarded the petitioner's complaint to the Director General of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), which sought permission to conduct an open inquiry against MHADA officials. Despite reminders, no action was taken, prompting the petitioner to seek judicial intervention.7. Application of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act:Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, requires previous approval for inquiries against public servants. The ACB sought permission from the State, which was not granted within the required period, indicating a deliberate avoidance of registering an FIR.8. Judicial Directives and Observations:The court observed that the material on record prima facie disclosed cognizable offenses by MHADA officials. The court directed the Economic Offences Wing to register an FIR within five days and proceed with the investigation. The court emphasized that its observations were tentative and should not influence the investigation or trial.Conclusion:The High Court directed the registration of an FIR against MHADA officials for their alleged complicity with developers, resulting in significant financial loss to the State. The court's decision underscores the importance of accountability and adherence to legal obligations by public officials.
TaxTMI 