The Bombay High Court Chief Justice Dipankar Datta has recused himself from hearing the plea seeking probe into the alleged disproportionate assets of former Chief Minister of Maharashtra Uddhav Thackeray and his family
The CJ has recused from the case after examining a report submitted by the High Court registrar regarding clearance given to the petitioner, Gouri Bhide, for in -person appearing in court.
After seeing the report, the CJ and Justice Abhay Ahuja, who was the other judge on the bench. discussed among themselves before Justice Ahuja pointed out something to the CJ.
The Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta recused from hearing the matter any further. The bench later said that the matter shall be posted before the appropriate bench.
The PIL filed by Bhide claimed that although Uddhav, his son Aditya, and wife Rashmi have never disclosed any service, profession or business as their official source of income; yet they had properties worth crores in Mumbai and Raigad districts.
The PIL filed by Bhide claims that the family of Uddhav, (his son Aditya, and wife Rashmi) have never disclosed any service, profession or business as their official source of income; they still have properties worth crores in Mumbai and Raigad districts.
It was stated in the PIL that the CBI and ED in Maharashtra revealed that close aides of Uddhav, Aditya and Rashmi were closely interrogated and were under the radar of the agencies.
The petitioner further said that it is a surprise that periodicals ‘Marmik’ and ‘Saamna’ which are run by the Thackeray family have never being subjected to the Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC).
It further claimed that during the lockdown, when print media in the country was facing heavy losses, whereas the Prabodhan Prakashan Pvt. Ltd. owned by Thackeray family, showed a huge turnover of ₹42 crores and booked a profit of ₹11.5 crores.
The plea said that the unaccounted money gathered from BMC and other sources might have been dishonestly digested into the accounts of the above mentioned company and fictitious figures of profit have been shown for this digestion.
She also that although she had filed a complaint with the Police Commissioner, Mumbai along with marking it to Economic Offences Wing (EOW), no action was taken and neither was she informed about the status of her complaint.
The petition therefore sought directions to the State to take cognisance of the complaint.
The petitioner also said that she has a hunch that activist Shri Kirit Somaiya or even both the respondent central agencies must have huge information and links pertaining to the respondents 5 to 8.