Supreme Court issues notice on ED plea against Bombay high court order declaring ex-VVCMC chief’s arrest as illegal | Mumbai News

Mumbai: The Supreme Court on Monday issued a notice on a special leave petition (SLP) filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against a Bombay High Court order that declared the agency’s arrest of former Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation (VVCMC) chief Anil Pawar in an alleged money laundering case as illegal.The high court, on Oct 15, directed Pawar’s immediate release on the condition that he would not tamper with witnesses or evidence.The high court stated, “The stand taken by the ED is speculative and based on hazy facts.” The apex court bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued the notice and sought replies and rejoinders. Pawar continues to remain out of jail. The Supreme Court may hear the matter next in Nov, though no date was fixed.The ED stated it filed its case based on allegations that Pawar received bribes worth Rs 169 crore for allegedly approving unauthorised construction of 41 buildings. The buildings were constructed from 2008 to 2010 by various accused builders in connivance with the officers of the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra (Cidco).In Nov 2019, an assistant commissioner of VVCMC lodged a first information report (FIR) against the builders. Four more FIRs were subsequently filed in 2022, and based on these FIRs, the ED registered its case in 2025 against Pawar.On Monday, the ED’s additional solicitor general, S V Raju, argued that the case merits intervention from the Supreme Court and mentioned there were text message exchanges in the matter that may “shock the court”. Refuting any need for intervention, Pawar’s senior counsel, Rajiv Shakhdher, contended that the ex-civic chief was not even named an accused in the five former FIRs based on which the ED launched its probe and arrested him on Aug 13.The WhatsApp chats between the petitioner and Reddy referred to photographs of certain ornaments, their value, and a proposal from Pawar to Reddy to buy some ornaments, the ED said. However, the high court, in its order, stated that during its raids at Pawar’s residential premises, the ED “didn’t recover any incriminating material”.The high court also observed that the ED never pleaded that “any cash, ornament, or unaccounted property has been recovered from the possession of (Pawar) or his premises which can be said to be the proceeds of crime”. The ED’s case before the Supreme Court was that “several incriminating materials, including huge cash, ornaments, etc, were collected from the premises of Y S Reddy, and Pawar’s alleged complicity was ‘unearthed’.” Pawar’s case was that these 41 buildings were approved when VVCMC was not even established, and he was only appointed its chief in Jan 2022, after which he pursued actions against the illegal constructions, which were also razed following the order of the high court in the petition.