1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL SIDE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 90 OF 2009 ALONGWITH NOTICE OF MOTION NOS. 189 /2009 & 323/2009 Miss Krishna Singh .. Petitioner. V/s. The State Government of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. --- Miss Krishna Singh, the Petitioner in -person. Ms. Uma Palsule-Desai, AGP for the State. Mr. R.R. Mishra for the Respondent/Federation. --- CORAM : J. N. PATEL AND A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 10TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C. : 1. The Petitioner, appearing in -person, has filed this petition for seeking following reliefs : a) Hon’ble President of Industrial Court submit their report and State May be order to submit their report on such sexual harassment and gender bias with in specify time from fix by Hon’ble Court. 2 b) Film industry workers affected by labour exploitation, sexual harassment gender bias arbitrary removal from employment be adequately rehabilitated and reinstatement by order in the Hon’ble court. c) Personal from Film Industry responsible for sexual harassment and gender bias labour exploitation, arbitrative remove of women employees be prosecuted as per law so that such incident do not occur again. d) Cost of petitioner be provided any other relief may be granted to deem fit and proper. So that petitioner cannot starve out in the Court proceeding. 2. In our opinion, such reliefs cannot be granted against unknown persons. 3. The petitioner, appearing-in-person, harbours an impression that whole system is corrupt and that the lawyers engaged by her have been won over by the opposite side. She submits that until she get justice by grant of such reliefs in favour of the petitioner, the court should continue to hear and keep the petition alive. 3 4. This petition has been adjourned from time to time with no positive reliefs. On one occasion, Mr. C.U.Singh, Senior Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae for the petitioner. Thereafter, he was discharged, as the petitioner wanted to argue the matter in -person. 5. We find that keeping the petition alive would result in keeping the petitioner waiting with a hope. At some stage the court should inform the petitioner that such a petition is not tenable in public interest nor it would fructify in any relief or justice to the persons, whose cause the petitioner is purported to be prosecuting. 6. Petition stands dismissed. 7. In view of the dismissal of the petition itself, the above connected notice of motions are also dismissed as such. (J.N. Patel,J.) (A.A. Sayed,J.)