skc 1 WP-2910-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2910 OF 2011 M/s. Shahapur Land Developers ..Petitioner versus Tehasildar, Shahapur & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Prashant D. Jadhav for Petitioner. Mrs. M. P. Thakur - Assistant Government Pleader for State - Respondents. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. R. JOSHI, JJ. 08 August 2011. P.C. : Counsel for the petitioner on the earlier occasion when the petition was listed for admission sought time to seek instructions from the petitioner, whether the petitioner would like to withdraw the present writ petition and therefore the matter was shown in the cause little “For withdrawal”. However, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner wants a decision on merits irrespective of consequences of threat / objection raised by the members of Banjara Kranti Dal Maharashtra Pradesh Yuva Aghadi and therefore the petition is heard on merits. skc 2 WP-2910-11 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The writ petition is directed against the communication dated 5th March 2011 issued by the respondent no. 1 to the petitioner whereby the petitioner has been informed to change the name of the site / plot which the petitioner company proposes to sell which is the part of the business of the company on the ground that Banjara Kranti Dal Maharashtra Pradesh Yuva Aghadi has raised the objection in respect of the name of the site i.e. “Banjara Hills”. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the communication received by the respondents from the said Aghadi shows that if the petitioner does not change the name of the site in that event the members of Aghadi will indulge in processions, demonstrations and violence. It is in this background the impugned communication was issued to the petitioner. 4. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. It appears that the impugned communication dated 5th March 2011 issued by the respondent no. 1 to the petitioner is based on the objection raised by the Aghadi without there being any specific power to issue such communication. It appears that the members of the Aghadi have expressed skc 3 WP-2910-11 that if the name of the petitioner is not changed the members of the Aghadi may take out processions and do some act of violence. In our view, the office of the respondent no. 1 is wholly incorrect to issue such communication only on the above referred apprehension expressed by the members of Aghadi. In fact it is the duty of the State Government to maintain law and order and at no point of time can show inability to establish rule of law and to protect the society. In absence of any provisions in this regard we are of the view that the impugned communication is bad in law and is therefore hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A. R. JOSHI, J.)