1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.855 OF 2011 Bashir Babu Tambe and others Petitioners versus Senior Inspector of Police and others Respondents None for the petitioners. Mr.A.S.Gadkari, APP for the State. Petitioner No.6 present in person. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR AND P.D.KODE, JJ. DATE : 29th September 2011 PC : 1. Mr.Holmagi is advocate on record of the petitioner. He is absent. The matter is listed today because of the indulgence shown by the Court yesterday. Mr.Holmagi was made aware that no request for adjournment or keeping the matter back will be entertained. As a matter of fact, that position was stated even in the order dated 7th September 2011. We had to make that observation as we had noticed from the record that adjournment was sought on behalf of the petitioner even in the past. On every date Police Officer has to attend the Court to defend this proceeding. 2. On 17th August 2011 this Bench acceded to the request of the petitioners for time to file rejoinder affidavit. Once again further time was given to the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavit as is noted in the order dated 7th September 2011. In that order it was made clear that 2 no request for adjournment or keeping the matter back on any count on future dates will be entertained at the instance of petitioner. In spite of that, when the matter was called out on 22nd September 2011, Mr.Holmagi prayed for time on the ground that his client was unwell. Although we showed our displeasure in acceding to the said request made by Mr.Holmagi, by way of indulgence, we adjourned the matter to 28th September 2011. Yesterday, when the matter was called out, Mr.Holmagi again sought adjournment on the ground that he was not prepared with the matter and he had not read his brief. Once again, we showed indulgence and have kept the matter today. 3. As aforesaid, on every date of hearing, the Police Officers are required to attend to give instructions to the A.P.P.. That entails in loss to public exchequer and more so loss of invaluable time of the Police Officers who should be spending that quality time in investigating some other crime. From the record it is clear to us that the petitioners are not seriously prosecuting the present petition. Perhaps, the petition has been filed for some ulterior motives. Suffice it to observe that this is frivolous and vexatious proceedings taken out by the petitioners. The petitioner no.6 is personally present in Court and is praying for adjournment today. We rejected that request and asked him to proceed with the matter or make some arrangement. He submits that he is unable to make any other arrangement nor is interested in arguing the matter himself. From the relief which is claimed in the petition it appears that it is in the nature of injunction against the respondents in respect of some property. Insofar as criminal case is concerned, that has already been registered and investigated and charge sheet has also been filed. 4. In our opinion, therefore, this petition cannot be kept pending on the file and more so because of the conduct of the petitioners. 3 The same is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in State Treasury Account No.0055 for the Police Department within two weeks from today and receipt be produced in the registry within the same time failing which the matter be placed under caption "direction" on 18th October 2011 for reporting compliance. 5. We place on record the submission made by the learned A.P.P. that the petitioners had filed another writ petition being Writ Petition No.756 of 2008 seeking identical reliefs as claimed in prayer clause (c) of present petition, which has been dismissed by this Court on 20th July 2008. (P.D.KODE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)