Home »  News »  India »  Mumbai

Bombay high court refuses relief in PIL on benami holdings in Adarsh housing society

Saturday, 3 May 2014 - 7:10am IST | Agency: DNA

The Bombay high court on Friday refused to grant relief in a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by former journalist Ketan Tirodkar, alleging that the CBI had failed to arraign the family members of several politicians who own flats in the Adarsh housing society in benami names.

The CBI filed a supplementary charge sheet in March this year against 44 persons, including BJP Rajya Sabha member Ajay Sancheti and his family members, for owning flats in the Adarsh building in benami names.

Of the 103 flats, the CBI claimed it found 22 properties in benami names. Ajay Sancheti, his brother Abhay, nephew Paramveer and his M/S San Finance Corporation, Nagpur, are proxy owners of eight flats, it is alleged.

Similarly, it is alleged that former Congress MLC Kanhaiyalal Gidwani and his sons own six benami flats. The CBI has also named major general (retd) TK Kaul in the charge sheet, for owning three benami flats in Adarsh society.

Tirodkar argued that the CBI had "conveniently" not included the names of several other persons who own benami flats in the building.

"The names of following benami members have not figured in the supplementary charge sheet submitted by the CBI – Shivaji Kale, Nivruti and Jayshree Bhosale, Supriya Raorane, Girish Mehta, Satyasandha Barve (father of IPS officer Sanjay Barve) and Bhagwati Sharma (mother-in-law of former chief minister Ashok Chavan)," Tirodkar stated.

The PIL also claimed that Shivaji Kale had stated in an affidavit before the collector that he is an employee of Vidya Pratishthan, earning Rs12,000 a month. "According to the bio-data of deputy chief minister of Maharashtra Ajit Pawar, reflected on the website of the government, Pawar is president of Vidya Prathishthan," Tirodkar stated in the PIL.

The PIL also stated, the CBI had in its first charge sheet claimed that the flat to Bhagwati Sharma was allotted as quid pro quo for favour shown by Ashok Chavan in granting permissions to Adarsh society.

A division bench of judges PV Hardas and Ajey Gadkari, however, refused to pass any order on Tirodkar's petition and posted it for hearing in June.




Jump to comments