1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1274 OF 2008 Abu Asim Azmi. ...... ..... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra... ..... ..... Respondent. Mr. Syeed Akhtar for the Petitioner. Mrs. S. D. Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and A. A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATED : 18TH JULY, 2008. P.C.: The main relief sought in this writ petition is that the notices dated 16th June, 2008 and 18th June, 2008 be quashed and set aside. 2. By notice dated 16th June, 2008 the petitioner was denied permission to enter into Malegaon City. Yet by another notice dated 18th June, 2008 he was again banned from entering the Malegaon City. The petition has now become infructuous as the petitioner was restrained to enter the Malegaon City on 16th June, 2008 and 18th June, 2008 by virtue of the impugned notices. Therefore, no relief can be granted in that behalf. 3. The petitioner has claimed another relief in this case to the effect that if the respondents want to restrain the petitioner from going to any particular area of the State of Maharashtra to hold meeting, the petitioner should be informed 2 accordingly at least five days in advance. In our view, such a relief cannot be granted by this court as granting of such a relief would make the situation of law and order hazardous for many including, at times, to the petitioner himself. This is because if the respondents decide five days in advance to permit the petitioner to hold meting at a particular place in the State and if thereafter inputs are received by the police to the effect that holding of such meeting by the petitioner would create serious law and order problem, at times, even adversely affecting the petitioner himself, the police will not be in a position to prevent holding of such a meeting. In any case, it will not be possible for the police and consequently the respondents to decide, as claimed by the petitioner, five days in advance, as to what will be the situation of law and order in regard to holding of meeting by the petitioner five days in future at the grass root level. Therefore, it will not be even in the interest of the petitioner to pass an order as is sought for by the petitioner. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (A.A.KUMBHAKONI, J.)