Read Time: 08 minutes

The Bombay High Court in a recent judgement regarding the controversial Lavasa Project noted, that NCP Chief Sharad Pawar and his daughter Supriya Sule were “personally interested” in the development of the Lavasa Hill Station Project. The Lavasa project is often touted as Pawar’s “Dream Project”.

In a PIL filed by Nanasaheb Vasantrao Jhadav, seeking declaration that the special permission granted in 2002 to Lake City Corporation for purchasing lands for private hill station Lavasa in Pune district be declared as illegal, it was alleged that the Pawar family by reason of their political standings used their political clout and enormous influence on the Government machinery that led to development of the Lavasa Hill Station Project. However, the Pawars have not replied to such allegations citing no clear, specific and direct allegations had been levelled against them. 

The bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and G.S. Kulkarni took note of the petitioner's allegation that “Government machinery worked unusually fast to give effect to the wishes of Sharad Pawar, resulting in the grant of permissions, otherwise unlawful, involvement of a company in which Supriya Sule held shares”. The Court stated,

"In the absence of an effective answer by Shri Sharad Pawar and Smt. Supriya Sule...it cannot be said that exertion of influence and clout by Shri Sharad Pawar and Smt. Supriya Sule is an unreasonable inference that cannot be drawn from the facts."

The Court further observed that in absence of such reply, the veracity of the allegations have to be tested on “preponderance of probability”.  To that extent, the Court noted, 

"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. However, to what extent the same would aid the petitioner’s claim for relief is altogether a different question."

Further, on the conduct of Ajit Pawar, the then Minister for Irrigation and Chairman of MKDC, the Court observed that he had failed to direct or indirect in the matter, and hence, "Limited to that extent, Shri Ajit Pawar is found to be remiss in his duty."

However, taking note of the fact that the incident occurred in 2002 and the petition was filed in 2018, the Court decided not to interfere in the matter stating, 

"Although this public interest litigation is designed to espouse a definite public purpose and intended to serve a noble public cause of standing by the farmers, we feel that a ‘judicial hands-off’ approach is perhaps best suited in the present case having regard to the intervening delay between the alleged acts of violation of Constitutional guarantees and institution of this public interest litigation."

The Court did not mince its words while referring to greed and power and observed, 

"With a deep sense of pain and remorse, we feel compelled to take judicial notice of the malaise of looting of 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 country is faced with a situation where uprooting of this malaise seems to be difficult, if not impossible. For this to happen, first and foremost, the mindset of the people needs to change. The need of the hour is awakening of the collective consciousness of ‘we the people of India’. Greed, dishonesty, hatred, revenge, insensitivity, selfishness, jealousy and anger must give way to an unwavering faith in the Constitution, unadulterated love and affection, unlimited compassion, unflinching mutual trust, and unceasing sacrifice for the greater benefit of the nation. Above all, concern for the welfare of the people and zero tolerance for corruption must override all other considerations. If the greed and dishonesty for power and money continue unabated, the future does not augur too well for the country."

Nanasaheb Vasantrao Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.