The Bombay High Court on Tuesday reserved its judgment and clearly indicated that it was inclined to dismiss a petition seeking the registration of an FIR and a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against senior political leaders, including Sharad Pawar, Ajit Pawar, Supriya Sule, her husband Sadanand Sule, and several others, in connection with alleged irregularities related to the Lavasa project near Pune. Lavasa was conceived as India’s first privately developed hill city and has long been at the centre of controversy.
The petition was filed by Nashik-based advocate and agriculturist Nanasaheb Jadhav, who alleged that illegal permissions were granted to the Lavasa project by government authorities, leading to large-scale violations. Jadhav urged the court to direct the CBI to conduct a detailed investigation and to order the registration of a criminal case against political figures, senior state officials, and private stakeholders associated with the project. According to him, the alleged irregularities warranted criminal scrutiny due to their seriousness and the scale of the purported misconduct.
During the hearing, Jadhav argued that the prayers in his earlier petition had never been rejected outright and maintained that the present plea raised grave issues, particularly regarding the alleged involvement of members of the Pawar family. He told the court that he had approached both state authorities and the CBI through written representations, but no meaningful action had followed. On this basis, he sought judicial intervention to compel the central agency to investigate the matter and register an FIR if the allegations were found to have substance.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad, repeatedly questioned the legal maintainability of the petition. Addressing Jadhav directly, the judges pointed out the limitations of the writ court’s powers. The bench observed that, as a practicing lawyer who had been pursuing the issue for a long time, Jadhav was expected to be aware that a writ court does not ordinarily have the authority to direct the registration of an FIR or order criminal prosecution. The court emphasised that such relief does not fall within the scope of writ jurisdiction.
After hearing the petitioner at length for nearly an hour, the bench openly signalled its view by stating that it was inclined to dismiss the petition. The judges also raised concerns about whether the plea was even maintainable in its present form. Although intervention applications had been filed by Sharad Pawar and others named in the petition, the court declined to hear further arguments and restricted the proceedings to the petitioner’s submissions before reserving its order.
The Lavasa project itself has been mired in controversy for years. Planned as a model private hill city near Mumbai, it faced sustained criticism over alleged environmental violations, questionable land acquisition practices, political patronage, and accusations of corruption. These issues eventually contributed to the project’s financial collapse, stalled development, and long-running disputes involving regulatory authorities and local communities. Despite its ambitious vision, Lavasa has remained a symbol of the challenges and controversies surrounding large private urban development projects in India.
