In an affidavit filed before the Bombay High Court, the CBI has said that it has already looked into the role of Nilangekar but found no material or evidence to suggest any criminal misconduct on his part. (Agencies)
"The role of Shivajirao Patil Nilangekar and others in relation to Adarsh has already been looked into. The material unearthed during the course of investigation did not warrant action against them (Nilangekar and others) and, therefore, they are not included as accused in the chargesheet," the CBI affidavit said.
The affidavit was filed in reply to an application filed by social activist Pravin Wategaonkar.
Wategaonkar, who filed the application in the course of his Public Interest Litigation on Adarsh probe, alleged that Patil Nilangekar, during his tenure as Revenue Minister, granted certain approvals to Adarsh Society illegally. In return, his son-in-law was allotted flat in Adarsh, the application claimed.
The CBI in its affidavit said that probe into ‘benami transactions’ was still in progress.
"Further investigations with regard to financial transactions involving K L Gidwani (former MLA and promoter of Adarsh) and Arun Dhawle, son-in-law of Shivajirao Patil Nilangekar, while acquiring flats and the flow of funds to the account of the society are still in progress," the affidavit filed by S S Giri, investigating officer of CBI, said.
"With regard to role of Nilangekar as Revenue Minister, the investigation carried out by CBI earlier did not find any prosecutable evidence against him to arraign him as an accused," the affidavit said.
There is no material on hand to suggest that Nilangekar extended undue favours to the society and that his son-in-law was allotted flat as quid pro quo, it added.
Nilangekar was the state’s Revenue Minister when Adarsh Society, accused of several violations of civic and environmental laws, was allotted land in upmarket south Mumbai in 2004.
In an affidavit filed before the Bombay High Court, the CBI has said that it has already looked into the role of Nilangekar but found no material or evidence to suggest any criminal misconduct on his part.