Principal secretary asked to decide on complaint against minister Abdul Sattar within eight weeks

Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justice Mangesh Patil and Justice Shailesh Brahme, has issued directives for the Principal Secretary of the Home Department to make a decision within eight weeks regarding a complaint against state minority minister Abdul Sattar. The complaint alleges the misuse of funds earmarked for community halls, which were allegedly diverted to construct rooms for his private school.

The court's order is based on a report by the Crime Investigation Department (CID) indicating possible misuse of funds by minister Sattar. The directive emphasizes that the decision taken by the principal secretary should also be communicated to the petitioner involved in the case.

The complaint, pending with the principal secretary for more than three years, has prompted the court to intervene and expedite the inquiry process. The advocate general was also consulted in this matter.

What is the case

Minister Abdul Sattar allegedly allocated approximately Rs 45 lakh from government funds to construct community halls in four villages including Andhari, Ambhai, Soygaon, and Fardapur. However, complaints surfaced, alleging that the funds were misappropriated for the construction of school rooms in Sattar's private educational institution. Following a complaint by BJP tehsil president Dilip Danekar to the then chief minister Devendra Fadnavis, the case was referred to the CID by the government.

Despite a thorough investigation by the CID and the submission of its report to the chief minister, no action was taken against Sattar. Social activist Mahesh Shankarpelli, along with Danekar, pursued the matter further by filing a complaint with the home secretary, urging action. But no action was taken. In response, Danekar and Shankarpelli filed a petition in the Aurangabad Bench through their legal representatives. Despite repeated opportunities given to the government to provide a fact-finding report through the public prosecutor, no information was forthcoming. Consequently, the bench disposed of the petition with the aforementioned directives.