Sep 08,2025 None

293 / sanction for prosecution of Bhushan Gagrani, ashwini Joshi, Jaydeep More, Mr. valanju / Hancock Crawford file and folder

Date: 8.9.25  

293 / sanction for prosecution of Bhushan Gagrani, ashwini Joshi, Jaydeep More, Mr. valanju / Hancock crawford file and folder

 

    To,

1. The President of India
2. The Prime Minister of India
3. The Governor Maharashtra State
4. The Chief Minister, Maharashtra state.
5. The Chief Secretary Maharashtra state
6. The Municipal Commissioner, BMC
7. Addition Chief Secretary (Home)
8. ACS / Principal Secretary UDD

 

 

Kamlakar Ratnakar Shenoy aged 67 years.                                       

Residing at B-903, Vaishali CHS,

Opp. MTNL exchange., Sheth Motisha lane

Mazgaon, Mumbai-400010.              

Mob: 9870987359, email shenoykr2001@yahoo.co.in         …….      Complainant

 

V/s.

 

1. Mr. Bhushan Gagrani, Municipal Commissioner, BMC
2. Mr. Ashwini Joshi ( Addl MC city )
3. Mr. Jaydeep More (Asst Comm B ward ) 
4. Mr. Valanju (Asst Comm Market)
5. Others unknown accused whose role shall be exposed in investigation

 

Application for grant of sanction for prosecution of the above officers.

 

Re: Sanction to prosecute the above officers for allowing, promoting, protecting the illegal shops and commercial premises on all roads around Crawford market thereby closing the part of road and footpath and denying free movement to pedestrians and motorists

 

Complaint u/s 125, 198, 199, 200, 255, 256, 316(5) 326(b) of BNS

 

1. The complainant herein is a law abiding and peace loving senior citizen aged 67 years at the address mentioned herein above.

 

2. The complainant states that the above mentioned officials are involved in the matter at relevant time.

 

 

3. Details of the accused.

 

1. 1. Accused no. 1 is the Municipal Commissioner of BMC.
   2. Accused no. 2 is Addl MC city, BMC
   3. Accused no. 3 is Asst Comm A ward
   4. Accused no. 4 is asst Commissioner Market dept  
   5. Others unknown accused  

      

4. Gist of offence committed by the above accused.

 

1. 1. The complainant states that the above accused who are public servants have been entrusted the traffic island, parking spaces, road and footpath of Mumbai city and the same is under their dominion.  As per MRTP act and several Bombay High Court and Hon. Supreme Court judgements the BMC is duty bound to initiate immediate action for clearance against the encroachers and obstruction on road, footpath and traffic island. The road footpath and traffic island is specially reserved for free and safe movement of pedestrians and motorist. There is a circular dt. 14.12.1999 which has directed that no permission shall be given to any temporary and permanent structures on road, footpath. (attached the circular dt. 14.12.99 of BMC)

 

1. 2. The transit market was allowed to be constructed and to carry out business with fire NOC compliance certificate thereby endangering life and property. Hereto attached is the letter dt.7.9.21 from fire brigade. 

 

1. 3. the Respondent accused public servants, were holding position of authority, public trust, and moral responsibility to act in larger public interest and not to misuse and abuse his position to cause wrongful gains to private entities and wrongful gains to public authority and / or public at large. Hence, the accused had a greater responsibility to act judiciously and to set a precedent to his subordinate officers.

 

1. 4. the Respondent accused has protected, promoted, and allowed the obstruction and encroachment to continue on road and footpath, parking spaces in violation to all rules and regulations in the most congested place in Mumbai where the pedestrians cannot even cross the road (endangering their life and limbs) and the motors move at very snail pace of 5 to 10 kms per hour.  These accused have actually closed the major part of road

 

1. 5. the Respondent accused have in fact used the road for shops and commercial use to illegally rehabilitate the occupants inside the Market, which under no circumstances can be legally allowed. attached photos

 

Conduct of the accused.

 

5. The Complainant states that the conduct of all the accused conclusively proves that all the accused mentioned herein above have willfully and deliberately being seized with full knowledge

 

1. 1. Disobeyed the direction of law, abused and misused their position thereby causing wrongful loss to public at large.
   2. Played mischief with road by making it less safe and creating every possibility / likelihood of accidents and losses by way of slow moving traffic increasing time of travel.
   3. All the accused were duty bound to obey the circular dt. 14.12.99 which they purposely and deliberately disobeyed.
   4. They framed incorrect records and writing by issuing allotment which they could not have issued.   

 

6. The complainant states that he is filing this application for sanction without prejudice to his rights and contentions that no sanction is required as the accused mentioned herein above have
   1. acted beyond the scope of the discharge of their official duty
   2. These illegal acts committed by the accused have no nexus with the discharge of official duty.
   3. Willfully and deliberately disobeyed the direction of law and framed incorrect records to save and shield the accused.
   4.  Hence, there is no need to obtain sanction from the competent authority to prosecute these officers.
   5. These accused have willfully failed to discharge their official duty with devotion, faithfulness and integrity.
   6. The acts committed is impermissible under the law. 
   7. The act committed is without good faith and willfully violated all the mandatory conditions and directions of law. 
   8. The accused have willfully failed to honor their responsibility to keep the road safe and free from encroachment which mean they have committed culpable negligence.

 

7. The Complainant further states that the competent authority should take immediate steps to dispose my application for sanction of the above accused within 120 days.

 

8. The above officers are public servants. You, in your capacity as deemed appointing authority are therefore the Designated Authority for granting Sanction to prosecute the said above mentioned officers. 

 

9. Your Sanction is required by me for prosecuting the above mentioned public servant for the offences committed under Indian Penal Code and other provisions based on the materials available to me.

 

10.  And for this act of kindness the complainant shall as in duty bound ever pray.

 

Mumbai:                                                                                             Complainant

This 9^th day of September 2025.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---