1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAQL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3389 OF 2009 Ramesh Jagannath Bhandare .. Petitioner Vs 1. Pepsico India Holdings P Ltd .. Respondents Mr.M.V.Holmagi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr I.M.Chagla, Senior Counsel with Mr R.I.Chagla, i/b R.V. Talasikar, for respondent no.1. Mr D.A.Nalawade with Mr Y.M.Nakhawa, Addl.PP (UOI). Mr. S.N.Gawade,APP, for respondent-State. Mr Sandeep Patil, for respondent no.3-BMC. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & A.R.JOSHI,JJ. DATE : 25/03/2010. PC: 1. Heard Mr Holmagi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Chagla, learned senior counsel for respondent no.1, Mr Nalawade, Addl. P .P for Union of India, Mr Gawade, APP, for the respondent-State, and Mr Sandeep Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.3- BMC. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has made the following prayers. T 2 (a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to invoke its inherent and writ jurisdiction and direct the concerned authorities such as CBI or the police to immediately initiate action and also by issue of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents the said BMC and Union of India to immediately cancel all the licences permits etc given to the said company and take cognisance of the same and thereby take action as the said respondents are authorities to take cognisance and deal with the same. (b) That the respondent nos 3, 4 and 5 have their jurisdiction to investigate the matter and by writ of mandamus give such directions and see that the said respondents take note of the same and in future said dangerous product to the human life would not be repeated by manufacturers and pass such orders and directions, as deem fit and proper. (c) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to consider the seriousness of the above and give necessary directions and orders as deem fit and proper and prevent any further repetition of any manufacture as the manufacturers are neglecting the health and even all the concerned persons who are responsible to check the product to be taken into task and take action in accordance with law. 3. The petitioner is seeking the aforementioned reliefs, stating in the petition that he came across a product of respondent no.1, namely, the cold drink bottle having some foreign substance. Mr Holmagi, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that despite service of this petition, none of the concerned authorities has taken any action against respondent nos 1 and 2. In the petition, the petitioner has stated that he wanted to approach the 3 police, but in the past no cognizance was taken by the police of such incident.He admits that the petitioner before filing of the pettion, has not approached either police or any other authorities including the Consumer Forum for redressal of his grievance. Keeping that in view and having regard to the prayers and the contents of the petition, we are not inclined to entertain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. (A.R.Joshi,J.) (D. B. Bhosale, J.)