1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2985 of 2010. Saiyyad Asad Saiyyad Gabaru. ...VERSUS.. The State of Maharashtra and 13 others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. V.G. Bhamburkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for R-2 to R-4. Mrs. Mayuri Deshmukh, AGP for R-1 & R-12. Mr. M.P. Badar, Advocate for R-9 & R-10. Mr. G.R. Agrawal, Advocate for R-14. C ORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK; AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 8th July, 2011. Heard. Mr. Bhamburkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not prepared with the matter and hence seeks an adjournment. It is necessary to note that this matter was adjourned from time to time at the request of the counsel for the petitioner. On 29.04.2011, the matter was adjourned to 06.05.2011 and on 06.05.2011 the same was adjourned to 24.06.2011, at the request of the counsel for the petitioner. On 24.06.2011, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and therefore, the matter was adjourned to 01.07.2011, as a last chance. Thereafter, on 01.07.2011 again the matter was adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the request made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of adjournment is rejected. 2 On perusal of the writ petition and on hearing the learned counsel for the respondents it appears that the case of the petitioner is that the respondent no.14 has amassed disproportionate assets by illegally cutting trees and forest produce. It is averred in the writ petition that the respondent no.14 has not disclosed his income to the Income Tax Department. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.14 has 20 to 25 Kgs. of gold and has purchased various properties in Patur, Akola, Akot, Washim, Guntur, Malegaon and Hyderabad without disclosing the said fact to the Income Tax Department. It is the case of the petitioner that inspite of filing various complaints before the Income Tax Department, the Anti Corruption Department, the Police Station Officer of the concerned Police Station, the authorities, have not taken any cognizance of the complaints filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has, therefore, sought a direction to the respondents to make an investigation into the various complaints made by the petitioner to the various authorities against the respondent no.14. The petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to take suitable action against the respondent no.14 in case he is found guilty. It is firstly necessary to note that the petitioner has not stated that the present petition is being filed by the petitioner as a Public Interest Litigation. In fact, certain averments are made in the petition to show that the petitioner is not on good terms with the respondent no.14. It is stated in the petition that the henchmen of the respondent no.14 have threatened the petitioner. It appears that the petition has been instituted by the petitioner with a view to settle his score with the respondent no. 14. Apart from the aforesaid position, it is apparent from the reply filed by the Income Tax Department, the Police Station 3 Officer, Police Station Patur and the replies of other respondents including the respondent no.14 that the respondents have taken a note of the complaint filed by the petitioner. The Income Tax Department has stated in the affidavit that wild allegations are made by the petitioner about the purchase of properties by the respondent no.14 at more than half a dozen places and the Income Tax Department had indeed made investigation in that regard and found that the properties mentioned by the petitioner are located in the slum areas and the owners of those properties are not known. In regard to the allegations about the respondent no.14 possessing total 20 to 25 Kgs. of gold, it is the case of the Income Tax Department that in the search conducted by the department, the department did not find any gold in the house of the respondent no.14. It is stated by the Income Tax Department that a tax enquiry is initiated in the case of the respondent no.14. Lastly, it is submitted that as and when the petitioner supplies the material particulars to the Income Tax Department, appropriate action would be taken in accordance with law. Even according to the Police Station Officer, Police Station Patur the complaints of the petitioner are noted by the Police Station Officer and a charge-sheet has been filed against the respondent no.14. It is surprising to note that criminal cases are pending against both, the petitioner as well as respondent no.14. As already stated herein above, it appears that the petition has been filed by the petitioner out of animosity and with a view to settle this score with the respondent no.14. No complaint is received from the petitioner by the Anti Corruption Department. The learned counsel for the respondent no.14 stated that the respondent no.14 is ready to face any investigation in accordance with law and the petition needs to be dismissed in 4 view of the replies filed by the other respondents which show that indeed cognizance of the complaints of the petitioner was taken by the authorities. Apart from the fact that the petition is not tenable as the petitioner has no locus standi to file the same, for the reasons aforesaid, it would also not be possible for this Court to entertain this writ petition as the same has been filed by the petitioner for seeking action against the respondent no.14, who appears to be on inimical terms with the petitioner. Even otherwise, the respondents have indeed taken cognizance of the complaints filed by the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. JUDGE JUDGE NSN