The Mumbai high court on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed by police inspector Daya Nayak challenging the jurisdiction of a special court to order a probe into allegations that he is hand in glove with the underworld on the basis of a complaint filed by a Mumbai journalist.

Justice B H Marlepalle said the order of the special court was within the framework of the law. He also rejected Nayak's plea for four weeks time to file an appeal in the Supreme Court and ordered the 'encounter specialist' to deposit his passport with the Mumbai police commissioner.

Ketan Tirodkar had alleged that he and Nayak, who has shot dead 70 gangsters, had taken Rs 5 crore from Pakistan-based gangster Chhota Shakeel to transfer cops. He had also alleged that Hindi film Kaagar was made based on Nayak's life at the instance of Shakeel.

Designated Judge A P Bhangale had ordered police to probe the allegations. The court had also ordered police to search the premises of Nayak, Kaagar producer Mrunalini Patil and builder R C Agarwal.

Nayak told the high court that he had not committed any offence under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and the designated court should not have entertained Tirodkar's complaint, as he had no material to substantiate his charges.

His counsel V R Manohar raised three points in the petition.

1. The special court should not have entertained a private complaint

2. The court had taken cognisance of Tirodkar's complaint without obtaining sanction from the competent authority specified under MCOCA

3. Designated Judge A P Bhangale's order was bad in law and unconstitutional

Nayak also pointed out that the police had already instituted a similar inquiry on a directive of the Mumbai high court on the basis of Tirodkar's petition.

The court, however, disagreed and held that a special court had powers to entertain a private complaint. In this regard, it cited a Supreme Court judgment in the case of (former Maharashtra chief minister) A R Antulay versus Ramdas Nayak.

As regards obtaining sanction from a competent authority under MCOCA, the court said cognisance of a complaint is taken after the process (summons) is issued against the accused. This case is at the preliminary inquiry stage and hence sanction is not required at this juncture. After the preliminary inquiry, it the special court came to the conclusion that a summons has to be issued against Nayak then it would send the papers to the sanctioning authority.

It also upheld the special court's decision to order a search on the premises of Nayak.