Bombay HC Adjourns Hearing On Petition Against Bhujbal's Discharge In Maharashtra Sadan Case

The Bombay High Court has deferred the hearing of activist Anjali Damania's petition contesting the discharge of NCP minister Chhagan Bhujbal and others in the Maharashtra Sadan scam case until April 28. The adjournment came as the court addressed procedural questions regarding who has the legal authority to challenge the discharge order.

During the proceedings before Justice Shivkumar Dige, advocate Girish Kulkarni, who represents a former Maharashtra Principal Secretary also accused in the case, questioned Damania's standing to contest the discharge. Kulkarni contended that Damania, being neither a complainant nor a witness in the case, lacks the authority to challenge the order, arguing that only the state possesses this right.

Kulkarni also noted that the Chief Justice had previously assigned the case to Justice S.M. Modak's bench, which had planned to first determine whether Damania had the legal right to challenge the order. However, the matter was rescheduled because Justice Modak is currently sitting on a division bench with Justice Sarang Kotwal, making his single bench unavailable.

Although advocate Rizwan Merchant, representing Damania, requested the court to instruct the High Court Registry to specify which bench would hear the petition, Justice Dige postponed the decision, noting the Public Prosecutor's absence from Wednesday's hearing.

In addition to Damania, Shiv Sena MLA Suhas Kande has also filed a petition related to the case. Damania initially submitted her petition in 2021, but faced delays when five different benches declined to hear it. After a two-year wait, she approached the Supreme Court, which directed her to seek a new bench assignment from the Chief Justice.

The case stems from September 2021, when the Mumbai Sessions Court discharged Bhujbal and others in the Maharashtra Sadan scam. While the Anti-Corruption Bureau chose not to contest the discharge, Damania pursued the matter, arguing that the case merited further examination.