BJP's Kirit Somaiya Moves Bombay High Court Seeking ED Probe Against CM Uddhav Thackeray For Alleged Illegalities Of Alibaug Property
BJP leader Kirit Somaiya has approached the Bombay High Court seeking an investigation by the Enforcement Directorate and other agencies into alleged "illegalities" by CM Uddhav Thackeray and his family regarding a property in Alibaug. The contentious property, according to the petition was purchased by Thackeray's wife Rashmi and Manisha Waikar (wife of MLA Ravindra Waikar) from...
BJP leader Kirit Somaiya has approached the Bombay High Court seeking an investigation by the Enforcement Directorate and other agencies into alleged "illegalities" by CM Uddhav Thackeray and his family regarding a property in Alibaug.
The contentious property, according to the petition was purchased by Thackeray's wife Rashmi and Manisha Waikar (wife of MLA Ravindra Waikar) from its owner Anvay Naik for over Rs 2 crores, of which Rs. 10 lakh was paid in case as token.
"This act is in blatant violation of Section 269ST of Income Tax Act, 1961 that prohibits cash payments in excess of Rs.2 lakh."
In his PIL, Somaiya said that Thackeray and MLA Ravindra Waikar concealed and undervalued structures on the property in the election affidavit and violated provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Somaiya sought for the investigation report to be placed before the court.
Somaiya has sought that an investigation be carried regarding the status of the property, constructions therein, and method of payment.
"The Property Tax Receipt issued by the Gram Panchayat establishes the existence of structures on the said property. Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 have deliberately suppressed/concealed the existence of the structures standing on the Subject Property from their Affidavit dated 9th May 2022 submitted in terms of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951."
He claimed that the receipts contradicted the election affidavits filed.
"With regard to the aforesaid, and on the basis of the facts and circumstances as more particularly adverted to hereinabove, that there exist permanent structures on the Subject Property is conclusive. However, even so, Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 have deliberately concealed and suppressed existence of these structures."
Somaiya also claimed that there seems to be no permission for the structures. And the property being situate within 100 m of the tidal line, it was in contravention to the provision of the Coastal Regulatory Zone Rules.
Somaiya claimed no environmental and/or forest clearance appears to be taken by Rashmi Thackeray and Manisha Waikar even though the alleged property falls within the area of a reserved forest.
"It is obvious that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not obtain such permission being well aware that they were not entitled to the same," the plea states.
It may be noted that Somaiya has made these claims in the past, as well.
Apart from Thackeray, his wife Rashmi, MLA Ravindra Waikar and his wife Manisha Waikar are other respondents in PIL.