Anil Deshmukh cannot challenge the order before Supreme Court

 Anil Deshmukh cannot challenge the order before Supreme Court.

High Court’s order well reasoned and Anil Deshmukh’s challenge may invite more strong action from the Supreme Court.

As per law the accused will not have a say on the question of investigation by CBI.

Earlier in a similar case the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra Sh. Vilasrao Deshmukh committed gross illegality and Bombay High Court imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/- upon State Government.

Said order was challenged by State of Maharashtra before Supreme Court and Supreme Court in the case of 'State Vs. Sargandharsingh Chavan (2011) 1 SCC 577', had imposed a cost of Rs. 10 Lakhs on Maharashtra Govt for unlawful interference and directions in a criminal case by then Chief Minister Shri Vilasrao Deshmukh.

 

 Adv. Nilesh Ojha explained.

Today Bombay High Court directed CBI to conduct a preliminary inquiry into corruption allegations against Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh based on the petition filed by lawyer Jayshri Patil, Ghanshyam Upadhyay and others.

The bench ordered the Director of CBI to conduct a preliminary inquiry within 15 days. Once the preliminary inquiry is complete, the director CBI is at discretion to further course of action  ordered the bench in Writ Petitions and a PIL filed by the former Mumbai Police Commissioner.

Param Bir Singh moved the HC seeking a probe against Deshmukh, who asked police officer API Sachin Vaze to collect ₹100 crore from bars and restaurants.

Some news are flashed that the  accused Anil Deshmukh is planning to challenge the order of the High Court before the Supreme Court.

However the main hurdle which makes the claim of the Anil Deshmukh non maintainable is the judgment of Three Judge Bench in Romila Thapar’s case . Where it is ruled that in a writ petition seeking impartial investigation, the accused has no right to be heard at the stage of investigation.  It is observed thus;

“23. Recently, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in E. Sivakumar Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2018) 7 SCC 365 , while dealing with the appeal preferred by the “accused” challenging the order of the High Court directing investigation by CBI, in paragraph 10 observed:

“10. As regards the second ground urged by the petitioner, we find that even this aspect has been duly considered in the impugned judgment. In paragraph 129 of the impugned judgment, reliance has been placed on Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat, wherein it has been held that in a writ petition seeking impartial investigation, the accused was not entitled to opportunity of hearing as a matter of course. Reliance has also been placed in Narender G. Goel Vs. State of Maharashtra, in particular, paragraph 11 of the reported decision wherein the Court observed that it is well settled that the accused has no right to be heard at the stage of investigation. By entrusting the investigation to CBI which, as aforesaid, was imperative in the peculiar facts of the present case, the fact that the petitioner was not impleaded as a party in the writ petition or for that matter, was not heard, in our opinion, will be of no avail. That per se cannot be the basis to label the impugned judgment as a nullity.””