1 cri-pil-6-11 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 6 OF 2011 Rani Vijay Divekar .. Petitioner Vs. 1. State via Office of Chief Minister Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors. .. Respondents Mrs. Rani Divekar, petitioner, party-in-person, present. Mr. P. A. Pol, PP for State. Mrs. Revati Mohite Dere for respondent nos.2 to 4. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. FEBRUARY 03, 2011. P.C. We have heard Mrs. Rani Divekar, party-in-person and she claims that she is a house wife. The substantial prayer made in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India reads as under:- “(b) The action of ignoring the debacle of EPR mechanism in Finland [the first EPR] and France [2nd EPR] is not pardonable lethargy on the part of government which is in possession of 2 cri-pil-6-11 the data cited hereinabove in this petition memo.” The petitioner has based this Criminal PIL on the material she claims to have received through her friend on internet and replies from the official of Areva Company. She has also, during the course of hearing, placed before us some material she has taken out from internet. In our opinion, even prima facie, there is no material to take cognizance for any criminal offence and this is nothing short of a frivolous petition. We would be justified in levying exemplary costs against the petitioner, but she being a house wife we have let her off this time. Petition is rejected summarily. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)