Mumbai: The special court under the Prevention of Corruption cases has accepted the closure report from the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in connection with the complaint against real estate giant Niranjan Hiranandani and others, raising questions on the execution of the Powai Area Development Scheme (PADS).
Special judge SE Bangar observed that the investigation was carried out fairly and it’s futile to prosecute without any material against the accused. The court noted that the basis of the complaint lodged with the ACB was the order passed by the Bombay High Court in February 2012 in three Public Interest Litigations filed for irregularities in the execution of PADS.
“Much water has been flown under the bridge,” the court said, and the developer complied with all the terms as admitted by the state government in its 2022 affidavit. The complaint had been lodged by Mumbai Central resident Santosh Daundkar, alleging a Rs 30,000-crore fraud by M/s Lake View Developers, a Hiranandani Group entity, in collusion with the officials of MMRDA and BMC. He claimed that the scheme, intended for affordable housing, was diverted to construct luxury apartments, causing a loss to the public exchequer.
After a preliminary probe, the ACB had filed a closure report on December 22, 2013, claiming that they could not find any prosecutable evidence. The high court had, however, rejected the report on January 4, 2018, and ordered a reinvestigation. On August 30, 2019, ACB had filed a closure report, stating that the complaint is based on mistaken facts. Daundkar filed a protest petition and challenged the closure report. He had raised three major issues – the construction of luxury units instead of affordable housing, failure to hand over 15% of the developed flats to the state and unauthorised amalgamations and commercial exploitation of land meant for low-income residential use.
The ACB noted that the developer handed over 17,146.05 sq mt constructed area to MMRDA, arguing that the civil and regulatory controversy left no scope for criminal prosecution. Former IPS officer turned lawyer YP Singh, who represented Daundkar, said the order has opened up more questions. “There are serious legal and Constitutional issues involved, which can only be resolved by the high court and the Supreme Court,” he said.
