Ajit Pawar Breached 'Solemn Duty' By Not Disclosing Personal Interest In Lavasa Project : Bombay High Court

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.

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."

"At this distance of time, when even Lavasa Corporation's existence is under a cloud, the contentions as raised by the amicus as well as the petitioner as regards inertia to call for tender/auction, unlawful permissions and unauthorized change of rates, in the facts of this case, are reduced to mere academic interest rather than of practical importance. The objection relating to gross delay assumes importance in view of several subsequent or intervening events after accrual of the cause of action to move the Court. Although the cause of action arose from 1996, the petitioner approached the Court for the first time in 2011, and thereafter in 2013 and finally in 2018," the bench observed.

The bench was hearing a public interest litigation filed by advocate Nanasaheb Jadhav seeking to declare the 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 the petition was threefold. The first was with regards to the validity of the amendments of the relevant statutes and the introduction of the1996 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 the Lavasa Hill Station Project and whether any law has been breached in the course of such development.

The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell was that the Lavasa Hill Station Project, the brain child of Sharad Pawar, although was conceived on paper to promote tourism and related activities but ultimately, in reality, resulted in advancing extraneous considerations including promotion of real estate business. For project, not only the 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; and, 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.

While Ajit Pawar, who was the Irrigation Minister at the relevant time, countered the petition through an affidavit, Nationalist Congress Party Chief Sharad Pawar and his daughter and Loksabha MP Supriya Sule did not.

Sharad Pawar and Sule's lawyer argued that the allegations against them were baseless and unsubstantiated, therefore, there was no need for them to file an affidavit to counter the allegations. The court, however, noted in its judgement that, "All with a view to give shape to Shri Sharad Pawar's dream project of Lavasa, it cannot be said that exertion of influence and clout by Shri Sharad Pawar and Smt. Supriya Sule is an unreasonable inference".

"Pawar has been an important political personality for years. …Being an all-powerful political personality from Maharashtra, he cannot be immune to the rigours of law."

In the absence of any rebuttal from the two, the court observed, "We are left to judge the veracity of the allegations on tests of probability without anything more substantial by way of answer. Shri Sharad Pawar and Smt. Supriya Sule being personally interested in the project of the hill station, it is proved by preponderance of probability that the allegations are true".

On Ajit Pawar's role in the case, the bench observed that he, by virtue of being the ex-officio chairman of the Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation (MKVDC) at the relevant time, had sanctioned the Lavasa Project. He was also a part of the meeting which granted clearance to the 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.

"Shri Ajit Pawar can ever be held to have been justified in taking active part in the decision-making process for setting up the Lavasa Hill Station Project without disclosing his direct or indirect interest in such project before the Governing Council of MKVDC emerging from his blood relationship with Shri Sharad Pawar and Smt. Supriya Sule (being personalities having sufficient interests in the project)," the judgment observes, adding, "Limited to that extent, Shri Ajit Pawar is found to be remiss in his duty."

The court also took note of the fact that no tender was issued for the same before awarding the contract and that there was a failure to follow a fair and transparent procedure consistent with Constitutional norms and ethos is also clearly noticeable.

The bench said government, as well as public bodies, are trustees of the powers vested in them by the people of India, and "it is thus their paramount duty to discharge the trust reposed in them by acting in a manner that sub-serves public interest best."

"With a deep sense of pain and remorse, we feel compelled to take judicial notice of the malaise of looting in India and its natural resources by its own people in the recent past. The roots of such malaise have, without doubt, set in deep," the court observed, adding that the country was faced with a situation where uprooting of this malaise seems to be difficult, if not possible.

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."

Case Title: Nanasaheb Vasantrao Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: LiveLaw 2022 (Bom) 54

Click here to read/download the judgment