Earlier this month, the court observed that police officers showed “utter disregard to mandate of law”, and disobeyed law regulating investigation procedures, causing “prejudice to complainant and public at large”. (File Photo)A sessions court in Mumbai recently directed the magistrate to initiate proceedings against former Maharashtra Director General of Police (DGP) Satish Mathur and other officials of Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) for not registering an FIR against MHADA officials.The complaint was against CEO of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) and other officials in June 2016, for allegedly failing to take action against nearly 389 developers, who have not surrendered surplus saleable area of over 1.37 lakh square metres (over 33 acres), resulting in alleged wrongful loss of Rs 14,000 crore to the public exchequer.Earlier this month, the court observed that police officers showed “utter disregard to mandate of law”, and disobeyed law regulating investigation procedures, causing “prejudice to complainant and public at large”.Once the developer is granted permission to re-develop the cessed building (old structures whose occupants pay a cess or repair fund to housing authorities), the MHADA is required to ensure recovery of constructed surplus area.The court passed a ruling on a plea by city-based businessman and activist Kamlakar Ratnakar Shenoy, challenging a May 2022 order of the magistrate that dismissed his complaint against police officers. On June 1, 2016, Shenoy had initially filed a report with Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Crime Branch of Mumbai Police, which was forwarded to the ACB after two days and had been pending.Shenoy claimed Satish Mathur, the then DGP (ACB) and others disobeyed laws on criminal investigations and did not register an FIR despite conducting inquiry for several days. He also claimed that officials also refused sanction to prosecute the alleged offenders, resulting in his complaint before the magistrate court. After the magistrate court refused his plea, Shenoy challenged it before the sessions court.In his March 17 order, additional sessions judge Mujibodeen S Shaikh observed, “When there is ample evidence that the MHADA officials in collusion with the developers caused wrongful loss to the government and wrongful gain of the developers, then it was the duty of respondents to register the FIR immediately and to start the inquiry to find out the truth… However, the respondents avoided their responsibility and duty and chose to take the opinion from the Principal Secretary of Housing Department.”Story continues below this adThe judge noted that as per facts and circumstances, “it becomes crystal clear that under the garb of preliminary inquiry continued years together, the respondents showed utter disregard to the mandate of law and provisions and therefore, prima facie committed the offence punishable under sections 166A (disobey legal directions regarding investigation, failing to record information about cognisable offences), 217 (Public servant disobeying law to save some person) and 218 (Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture) read with 34 (common intention) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the respondents”.Setting aside the magistrate’s order, the judge noted that “time has come to pass bold orders to teach a lesson to ‘public servants on higher positions’ that if they avoid their official duty, their act can constitute a criminal offence and that none is above the law”. © The Indian Express Pvt LtdTags:MHADA