1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 44 OF 2010 Kunickaa Sadanand Lall ...Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Kunal Cheema for the Petitioner Ms. Geeta Shastri, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondents No. 1 to 3. CORAM: J. N. PATEL AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ. DATE: APRIL 29, 2010. P.C.:- The petitioner, who claims to be a social activist and convener of the Andheri Versova Welfare Residents Association and also in active politics, has approached this Court invoking its Extra-Ordinary Jurisdiction with specific reliefs in the nature of Writ of Mandamus seeking directions against respondents No. 1 to 3, i.e., State of Maharashtra, the Diretor General of Police and 2 the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, that they should perform their statutory duties by: (i) safeguarding the lives, liberty and property of all persons living in the State of Maharashtra; (ii) secure proper maintenance of public order; (iii) enforce law without fear or favour against all persons indulging in offences against public tranquility and violating constitutional guarantees to all citizens of India, specifically against the activities of respondent No.4, Shiv-Sena, respondent No.5, Shri Bala Saheb Thackrey, respondent No.6, Shri Uddhav Thackrey, and respondent No.7, Shri Sanjay Raut. 2. There is no case made out in the petition that the State has failed to discharge its constitutional obligation in providing safety and security to its citizens and their property, except for general statements and descriptions of the events in past. The petitioner has filed a complaint with the Senior Inspector of Police of Oshiwara Police Station in the matter and annexed certain media reports. The petitioner specifically wants the Court to call upon respondents 3 No. 1 to 3 to place before the Court the details, data and the expenses, until date, incurred by them to secure the lives of respondents No. 5 to 7 by providing Z+ or any other security, and particularly in the context of the incident which took place in the City of Mumbai as well as throughout the country at the time of release of movie 'My Name is Khan' and the expenses incurred for protecting Australian Players playing in the IPL 20-20 matches in the City of Mumbai. 3. It is a question of law and order problem, for which the State Government is solely responsible. The petitioner is at liberty to agitate these issues before the State Legislature or appropriate forum. The petition is dismissed. J. N. PATEL, J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.