1 PIL No.101-10 mgj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Public Interest Litigation No. 101 of 2010 Shri Maruti Mura Vagare ..Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra & ors ..Respondents Mr.A.G.Toraskar, for petitioner (appointed by legal aid committee) Petitioner in person present. None for the respondent. CORAM: MOHIT S.SHAH CJ & S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J 15th July, 2010 P.C. (Per S.C.Dharmadhikari J.) 1 This Public Interest Litigation was placed before us on 17th June, 2010 on which day the petitioner appeared in person and we directed him to approach the High Court Legal Services Authority so that the said authority provides him legal assistance. 2 The petitioner has thereafter approached the Committee and Mr.Toraskar has 2 PIL No.101-10 been appointed as an Advocate on his behalf. 3 The petitioner claims to be a farmer residing in Sangli District and particularly in Jat taluka. He states that in his village there are certain persons who have indulged in illegal and criminal activities and he finds it difficult to carry on his agricultural activities residing therein. 4 In the petition he has given instances of some of the ration shops allegedly selling the essential commodities at a higher price which is not permissible as it is far in excess of the price as determined by the authorities. However, he has not given any details of the ration shops nor has he given the period during which the ration shop dealers indulged in the malpractices as alleged. . 5 Further, he makes a grievance about illegal activities during the village festivals in a particular temple. He has once 3 PIL No.101-10 again not given any details as to when such activities were being carried on and the time when he noticed them. Further, he makes a complaint about the working of the Gram Panchayat itself. 6 Repeatedly, this Court has been emphasising that the petitioner must come with a specific complaint of mal practice, corruption, and illegality but the petitioner continues to present petitions with vague statements. Earlier he had approached this Court and the application was treated as PIL No.144 of 2009. The Division Bench appointed an Advocate but the said Advocate also could not render any assistance. The petition was, therefore, dismissed as being devoid of any particulars and specific allegations. 7 Despite the order dated 7th January, 2010 being brought to the petitioner s notice, the petitioner presents an identical 4 PIL No.101-10 application. Although it was treated as P.I.L. and legal assistance was provided, repeated insistence of the petitioner to proceed with the matter in the form it is filed, compels us to dismiss the petition. It is accordingly dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.