HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2068 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO. 2068 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO. 2068 OF 2007. Ramesh Pahilarjrai mangwani. ..Petitioner. Versus. Tahesildar Of Ulhasnagar & Others..Respondents. --- Mr. A. S. Gadkari, APP for the State. CORAM: S. B. MHASE & CORAM: S. B. MHASE & CORAM: S. B. MHASE & SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE: JANUARY 30, 2008. DATE: JANUARY 30, 2008. DATE: JANUARY 30, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a writ and/or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to the effect that the respondents should not interfere in the conduct of the petitioner’s social activities and amusement shop near Barrak No. 1939, situated on A-B Road, bearing Khata No. 243-A/ 694, 57/0249, Ulhasnagar, District Thane. The petitioner claims that he is the social worker carrying out the activities of the "Yuva Utkarasha Sangh" and the said Sangh has opened an Amusement Centre at the above referred premises wherein the facility of video games and films, etc., has been provided. According to the petitioner, the said activities are carried out on "No profit -No loss" basis, however, the respondents are asking the petitioner to stop the said activities or otherwise obtain licence under the Entertainment Tax Act. Thus, since the activities are being carried out without obtaining the licence under the relevant Act and without making payment to the Government in this respect the respondents are obstructing and asking the petitioners to close down the said activities. It is also revealed that the petitioner had at one point of time assured the officers that he will obtain the requisite licence, however, he has not obtained the same. Therefore, from the pleadings and facts disclosed in the petition, it appears that the respondents are justified in asking for the licence under the Entertainment Tax Act and payment of the requisite tax. Such compliance has not been done by the petitioner. Under these circumstances the petitioner has approached to this Court. We find no merit in the petition. 2. Apart from that what is to be noted is that the petitioner probably has filed this petition as a dilatory practice and to impress upon the respondent- officers that the matter is pending in the High Court. Even though the petitioner has filed this petition on 30th November 2007 and the petition has appeared before the Court a number of times, every time the counsel for the petitioner was found absent. We find that the counsel for the petitioner has remained absent from 14.12.2007. Today also nobody mentioned for the petitioner. Thus, we are satisfied that the petition has been filed only to pressurise and to make show to the officers that the petition is before the High Court. We find no merit in the petition. Therefore we dismiss the petition on merit. (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)