Mumbai/UNI: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea seeking a probe by central agencies against former Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray and his family for allegedly owning assets beyond their known sources of income.

Terming the pleas as "abuse of process of law", a division bench of Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Valmiki Menezes imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on the petitioner Gouri Bhide.

The order said: “The petition and complaint are bereft of any evidence to prima facie come to the conclusion to direct a CBI or ED probe. The petitioner is only speculating on the prosperity of respondents (Thackeray family) without any evidence.”

The order was passed during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a Mumbai resident Gouri Bhide who is a behaviour and soft skill consultant and her father Abhay was the second petitioner.

In the PIL Bhide urged the court for a direction to the CBI and Enforcement Directorate (ED) to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into the alleged disproportionate assets of Thackeray and his family.

In the petition, Bhide alleged that the Shiv Sena supremo, his son Aaditya and Rashmi have never disclosed a particular service, profession and business as their official source of income and yet they own properties in Mumbai, Raigad district which may run into crores.

During the hearing it was alleged that the Thackerays have amassed the wealth illegally and said that raids by the central probe agencies on their aides make it "crystal clear" that they have a nexus with the trio over undisclosed properties, cash and other wealth

It was also told to the court that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the entire print suffered losses but Thackerays' publication Prabodhan Prakashan Pvt. Ltd showed a profit.

In December when the matter was heard by the court , the Maharashtra government had informed the Court that the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Mumbai Police had initiated a preliminary inquiry into the complaint.

The Thackeray family opposed and sought dismissal of the PIL saying that such orders cannot be passed as the plea did not state the facts and due procedures in law are sought to be bypassed.