1 wp1913.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1913 of 2010 Kalim Ali Shaikh & anr. ....Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents Mr. Raju Yamgar-advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.V. Saste-APP for the State. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATED:- OCTOBER 12, 2010. P.C. Heard Counsel for the Petitioners and the Learned APP. 2. Even if the assertion of the Petitioners that they are social activists is to be accepted as it is, the core question that needs to be addressed for answering the reliefs claimed in this Petition is whether there is any threat perception to these Petitioners. That fact has been enquired into by the concerned police officials. The appropriate Authority has recorded subjective satisfaction that 2 wp1913.10 there is no threat perception to the Petitioners herein. That position has been stated on affidavit filed before us by the DCP-Zone IX, Bandra (W) and Additional Commissioner of Police Protection & Security, Mumbai. We have no reason to doubt the correctness of the said opinion of the concerned Authority. The fact that such assertion has been made on affidavit by the Department implicit in that assertion is the responsibility taken by the Department of Law and order situation. The averments in the Petition to which our attention is invited in particular paragraph 29 and 47, in our opinion do not make out any case to assume that there is threat perception to the Petitioners of such magnitude that they deserve 24X7 police protection. Merely because a person is a social activist by itself cannot be the basis to accede to such request. In the circumstances, this Petition ought to fail. 3. Counsel for the Petitioner would further contend that the background in which the report has been submitted by the local police officials is questionable. Inasmuch as, the the concerned police station was biased against the Petitioner because of his activism and also because of the fact that the Petitioners have filed Writ Petitions before this Court in the past and succeeded therein. However, from the entire Petition which has been filed, much less the documents which are appended to the Writ Petition in all running into around 3 wp1913.10 499 pages, there is not even one document to indicate that in the past, the Petitioners have alleged bias against particular police official who was out to see that the Petitioners do not get police protection. Such plea, therefore, cannot be permitted to be agitated across the Bar. Hence, this Petition fails. The same is dismissed. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)