IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2163 OF 2006 Somnath S. Vaidya .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Vikas Mali for the Petitioner. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, A.P.P for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 14th August 2008. P.C.: . Heard advocate for the petitioner. After arguing the petition for some time he states that the petition drafted by the petitioner appearing in person is defective and therefore he may be permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition. 2. It must be noted here that the same petitioner had filed Criminal Writ Petition No.960 of 2006. On 26th September 2006, the said Writ Petition came up before this Court and following order was passed: "P.C.: 1. Heard the advocate for the petitioner. He states that the petition was drafted by the petitioner who was appearing in person at that time. He, therefore, seeks permission to : 2 : withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition. Accordingly petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed." Thus, the earlier petition filed by the petitioner was withdrawn on the ground that the same was drafted by the petitioner appearing in person. In fact, this Court granted liberty to file a fresh petition. The present petition is again drafted by the petitioner himself. The order dated 26th September 2006 clearly records that the advocate for the petitioner voluntarily made a prayer seeking permission to withdraw the earlier petition with liberty to file a fresh petition. Surprisingly, in the synopsis of this petition, the petitioner appearing in person has stated that this Court directed him to withdraw the earlier petition. As the earlier petition was allowed to be withdrawn on the prayer made by the advocate for the petitioner, the said statement made in the synopsis is most objectionable. Infact an indulgence was shown by this Court by permitting the petitioner to file a fresh petition. However, as advocate for the petitioner is praying for permitting withdrawal of this petition, I do not propose to take any action in that behalf. The earlier writ : 3 : petition was permitted to be withdrawn in the year 2006 with a liberty to file a fresh petition only because the petition contained certain defects as the same was drafted by the petitioner appearing in person. After grant of liberty by this Court, again this petition has been filed by the petitioner appearing in person. It is true that merits of the case cannot be allowed to suffer because of bad or defective drafting. But, at the same time the petitioner cannot take advantage of leniency of this Court. 3. Hence, I pass the following order: (i) The petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh petition. (ii) The petitioner will pay costs of Rs.2,500/- to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority. (iii) Fresh petition shall not be registered unless a receipt issued by the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority is produced alongwith the petition. : 4 : (A.S.Oka,J)