1 Cri. W.P. 724.2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.724 OF 2007 Shaikh Javed @ Sheru S/o Abdul Sattar ... Petitioner V E R S U S The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents ... Mr. J.M.Murkute, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. K.G.Patil, A.P.P.for respondents. ... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ. DATE : 19th NOVEMBER, 2009 PER COURT : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner praying for awarding compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to him for the violation of his fundamental rights. He further prays for directing the deductions of this amount from the salaries of the guilty officers. The petitioner 2 Cri. W.P. 724.2007 further prays vide prayer clause ’C’, for issuing writ, directing the respondent nos. 2 to 5 not to harass the petitioner and not to abuse the process of law against the petitioner and no steps be taken against the petitioner without following the just, fair and reasonable procedure established by law. 2. In support of the prayer for compensation, Mr. Murkute, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention towards the averments in paragraph no. 7. It is stated that the petitioner came to be arrested from his residence on 18.06.2007 at about 1.15 a.m. and the Police did not permit the petitioner to wear his clothes properly and arrested and detained him in his under-garments. Perusal of the affidavit in reply submitted on behalf of the respondent disclose that the aforesaid fact is denied by the respondents. . Such disputed question of fact, therefore, can not be decided in exercise of the writ 3 Cri. W.P. 724.2007 jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is the only point that is urged before us, in respect of the prayer for payment of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. In respect of other prayers, it is urged by Mr. Murkute, learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents are deliberately issuing false notices from time to time and are harassing the petitioner. 4. According to us, the relief which the petitioner has prayed for in this petition, can not be granted. The falsity of notices issued to the petitioner, can not be pre-judged at this stage. If the petitioner is aggrieved or claims that his right is violated the petitioner has alternate remedies available in the law. A writ can not be issued against the respondents, not to perform their duties. Any breach of either the provisions of law, or violation of the rights of the petitioner, can be agitated by the petitioner by resorting to the remedies available to the 4 Cri. W.P. 724.2007 petitioner in the law. 5. In that light of the matter, we do not see any merit in this petition. The petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.V.NIRGUDE, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) MTK.