Court asks probe team to 'take responsibility', refuses to order filing of FIR

The Bombay High Court said the SIT to state if it was registering an FIR against officials of the BMC, the builder and others, who had allegedly illegally demolished a slum on a private land in Mumbai during the monsoon.

In Short

• SIT report finds no order from Human Rights Commission for demolition
• Bench observes prima facie large conspiracy, calls for investigation
• Court refuses to order FIR, asks SIT to take responsibility

The Bombay High Court on Monday directed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to state if it was registering an FIR against officials of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), the builder and others, who had allegedly illegally demolished a slum on a private land in Mumbai during the monsoon, which rendered many homeless.

The bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan asked the SIT to inform them about the FIR by Friday when it was hearing a petition against the illegal demolition of a slum on private land filed by the residents.

The bench went through a SIT report on Monday, which was submitted by Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar, and said, "Prima facie it seems to be a large conspiracy. Let there be an investigation."

However, the bench refused to pass an order directing the registration of an FIR.

"Why does the court have to do it? It is high time you take responsibility for your actions. Why every time fire a gun from our shoulder?" the bench said.

The plea sought an FIR to be lodged under provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including for voluntarily causing hurt and house trespass, and the SC/ST Act against Powai police, BMC officials, and developer Hiranandani for June 6 demolition.

After handing over the report, Venegaonkar submitted that there were few issues that the SIT had gone into.

The first was that the BMC had claimed that in May this year, the state human rights commission had passed an order directing them to demolish the slum on private land. The SIT stated that the Commission had never passed any such order for demolition.

According to rules, demolition drives cannot be undertaken during the monsoon unless there is a court order. The BMC officials had mentioned an order from the Commission to undertake the demolition in Powai after calling for police protection.

The SIT stated that the entire proceedings before the Commission were initiated by a person named Dilip Keni who appeared to be a "fictitious person" as no such person was found even at the address mentioned in the petition before the Commission.

Venegaonkar submitted that there are no documents and no RTIs which are claimed to be the basis of the petition. Venegaonkar stressed that there seemed to be some "connivance with the builder" on the issue.

Venegaonkar submitted that the slum was on a private land and so the BMC could not have demolished it, and that the allegation levelled by the slum dwellers of the builder positioning some bouncers to throw them out was prima facie true.

It observed that the report prepared by the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) Shashi Kumar Meena was "commendable" and a "very good report".

Venegaonkar replied that there was already an FIR and tenability of second FIR will be a problem when they arise out of the same cause of action.

However, advocates Ghanshyam Upadhyay and Swaraj Jadhav representing various slum dwellers, submitted that the registered FIR is against the slum dwellers and there was always a provision of cross FIRs, so the complaints of the slum dwellers could be converted into FIR against the builder and BMC officials.

Venegaonkar agreed to take instructions from the SIT officials and inform the court later in the week.