Bombay HC dismisses Param Bir Singh’s plea seeking quashing of state govt’s inquiries against him

The Bombay High Court Thursday dismissed the petition filed by former Mumbai police commissioner Param Bir Singh, seeking quashing of two preliminary inquiries against him by the Maharashtra government.

Justice SS Shinde and NJ Jamdar's division bench termed the petition as ‘not maintainable’. It noted that the reliefs claimed by Singh could be adjudicated only by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The division bench deemed that CAT could decide on Singh's plaint independently without prejudice to the High Court’s order.

On July 28, the court reserved its ruling on the maintainability of Singh’s plea. The two preliminary inquiries initiated against him were connected to the Ambani bomb scare case and allegations made by inspector Anup Dange, who was suspended last year but reinstated recently by the Mumbai Police.


“This claim of the petitioner (Singh), prima facie, does not hold ground in respect of the action initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint of Anup Dange,” observed the court in its 26-page order. “The latter had made the complaint against the petitioner (Singh) on 2nd February 2021, much before the controversy arose over the explosives scare.”

Singh, after being transferred to the Home Guards argued in his petition that, the orders of preliminary inquiry against him were liable to be set aside since they were, “grossly magnified attempt to harass the petitioner (Singh) for highlighting the corrupt malpractices of Anil Deshmukh, then home minister of Maharashtra.” “Therefore, the petitioner ought to be given protection against any action in vendetta in the guise of preliminary inquiry/ inquiry.”

After he was removed as the city police chief, Singh alleged in a letter to chief minister Uddhav Thackeray that Deshmukh had instructed suspended assistant police inspector Sachin Waze and some other police officers to collect Rs 100 crore per month from bars, restaurants and other places.

While appearing for the state government, Darius Khambata, Senior Advocate, had argued that the petition pertained to ‘service matters’ and should be raised before CAT.

While challenging this, Mahesh Jethmalani, senior counsel, appearing for Singh, argued that the government action was a form of vendetta. He further argued that the government, with the help of DGP Sanjay Pandey, was trying to convince Singh to withdraw the letter, and when the persuasion failed, false cases followed.

During the arguments, the state government also argued that as the DGP has recused himself from the probes and other officers would conduct the investigations now, Singh’s plea should be rendered infructuous and non-maintainable.