Previously a special investigation team (SIT) informed the Bombay High Court that the BMC carried out a demolition in Powai on June 6 without authorization from the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC). Public prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar presented a status report following a complaint from 36 residents against BMC officials and a developer. The demolition was based on a complaint by Namit Keni, but the supporting documents were found to be fictitious.
BMC’s advocate, Poornima Kantharia, asserted the authority to address encroachments on private land.Justice Chavan pointed to a potential larger conspiracy, urging investigations into all involved parties. The petitioners were represented by advocates Ghanshyam Upadhyay, Swaraj Jadhav, and Mubarakka Lokhandwala.
However the judges were of the view that on account of counter versions, a separate FIR needs to be registered on the basis of complaint filed by the petitioner
The State Government informed the Bombay High Court that an FIR will be filed regarding the June 6 demolitions at Jai Bhim Nagar in Powai, as a cognizable offense appears to have taken place, according to findings from a special investigation team (SIT). Public prosecutor Hiten Venegavkar indicated that the Powai police would initiate the FIR and subsequently transfer it to the SIT for further action.
The petition, submitted by 36 residents including Meena Limbole, sought legal action against BMC officials and the developer under various sections of the IPC and the SC/ST Act, citing police brutality during the demolition that rendered 650 families homeless. On August 9, the High Court had established an SIT to investigate these claims.
The SIT’s report revealed that the BMC conducted the demolition without proper authorization from the SHRC. While Venegavkar stated that the FIR would be based on the SIT’s findings, advocates Ghanshyam Upadhyay and Mubarakka Lokhandwala maintained that it should specifically reference Limbole’s detailed complaint. Senior advocate Shirish Gupte expressed concerns about the legality of filing a second FIR for the same incident, but the judges noted that second FIR is permissible in law if there are counter or cross versions.
They also requested a progress report by November 18.