- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2763 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2763 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2763 OF 2008 Panchratna Krida and Sanskrutik Mandal ...Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Ganesh Gole for the petitioner Mr.Rajesh More A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : APRIL 29,2009 : APRIL 29,2009 : APRIL 29,2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The substantive prayers made in this petition read thus : a) This Hon’ble Court by an appropriate writ or order or direction be pleased to direct the respondents not to insist the petitioner to produce/obtain the License for carrying out the activities of the Panchratna Krida and Sanskrutik Mandal and not to interfere in the legal activities of the said Social Group. b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents not to issue any oral directions to close the activities of the Panchratna Krida and Sanskrutik Mandal. d) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents not to prevent the members of the petitioner from playing Rummy or any other indoor games which are not in contravention of the Bombay Police Act or the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. 2. The present petition has been affirmed on 19th December - 2 - 2008. The petition is based on very vague averment made in paragraph 6 that Officers of Murgud police station visited the premises of the petitioner and threatened the petitioner to prosecute him. Even the date on which the police officers allegedly visited the premises of the petitioner is not stated in the petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that organization of the petitioner comes from rural area and people in rural area are not expected to remember the particulars such as date of visit of the police officer. The said argument cannot be accepted. The petitioner claims to be a non commercial organization registered under the Societies Registration Act,1860. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner works for the welfare of the society. Looking to the averments made in the petition, it cannot be said that the members of the of the petitioner organization are illiterate or semi literate. If a police officer had really visited the premises, in normal course, the petitioner would have made grievance by writing a letter to the said officer of the police station or to his superior officer. That has not been done. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are decisions of this court in favour of the petitioner. If that is so, the officers of the State are bound to follow the said decisions. On the basis of such vague averments, the petition cannot be entertained and the same is disposed of. - 3 - JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE