UPS MADAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present application, the Chief Secretary of State of Maharashtra has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge (under Prevention of Corruption Act) for Greater Mumbai, on 25th October 2018, thereby directing the ACB, Mumbai to investigate the complaint filed by the Respondent no.2 under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code')

(2.) We have heard learned senior counsel Shri Darius Khambatta appearing for the applicant, learned Public Prosecutor Shri Deepak Thakare along with Shri K.V. Saste for the State and Shri Aditya Pratap representing the complainant/ respondent no.2.

(3.) The grievance of the applicant revolves around the complaint which is filed by the respondent no.2 on 21st February 2018 in the Special Court seeking an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Maharashtra State, Anti Corruption Bureau against the applicant for the alleged offences under Section 120B, 409 of the IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The said complaint was accompanied with several documents. The complainant alleged therein that particular land at Bandra Kurla Complex is developed by a Company known as Indian Film Combine Pvt. Ltd as a 'Drive-in- Theatre'. The allegation in the complaint is to the effect that the said Company is developing the Drive-in-theatre by utilizing the 2.0 Floor Space Index (FSI) and it is also proposing to carry out the construction of shops, hotels etc. on the said piece of land. The complaint alleges that according to the prevailing Rules and Regulations, it is permissible for the Company to develop the land in issue by utilizing only 1.0 FSI and without changing user of the said land distinct from a Drive-in-theatre. A positive assertion is made in the complaint that it is the applicant who is responsible for granting the permissions which has resulted into the Company obtaining pecuniary advantage by violating the norms relating to FSI and change of user in respect of the land in question. In order to establish the said allegation, the complainant alleges that originally for Bandra Kurla Complex, FSI of 1.0 was available and thereafter, the Central Government through Ministry of Environment and Finance issued a notification on 19th February 1991 that on and from the said date of the notification, in CRZ area, development would be permissible only to the extent permitted by Rules/Regulations in force as on date of the said notification and such development would be permitted without any change in user. The premise on which allegations are levelled in the complaint is the MOEF notification and it is alleged that FSI of 2.0 was not available for the land in issue and the land could be put to use only as a Drive-in-theatre.