- 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.2652 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2652 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2652 OF 2008 Panchdip Kala and Sanskrutik Mandal ...Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Ganesh Gole for the petitioner Ms S.V.Gajare 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 and the learned A.P.P. for State. The substantive prayer made in this petition reads 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 Panchdip Kala 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 Panchdip Kala and Sanskrutik Mandal. c) That pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to restrain the - 2 - respondents from objecting to the legal activities of Panchdip Kala and Sanskrutik Mandal from being carried out and insisting upon the no objection of the police license/permit u/s 33 (w) of the Bombay Police Act. The said prayers are made on the basis of the averments made in paragraph 6 of the petition. The relevant averments read thus : "6. The petitioner states that despite the aforesaid position and despite the admitted position that no activity contravening the provisions of Bombay Police Act and the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act is being carried out, the officers from the Hupari police station, in the last week of November 2008, have threatened to prosecute the petitioner under the provisions of section 33(w) of the Bombay Police Act and insisting upon the closure of the petitioner’s activities for want of license..." 2. It must be stated that the petitioner has not given any particulars of the alleged visit of the police officers to the premises of the petitioner. Even the date on which the officers visited is not mentioned in the petition. Petition is affirmed on 11th December 2008. If the averments made in paragraph 6 were true, in normal course the petitioner would - 3 - have filed a complaint against the police officer to superior police officer but that has not been done. The learned A.P.P. on instructions of Mr.Rajendra Todkar, A.P.I., Hupari police station states that none from Hupari police station visited the premises of the petitioner as alleged by the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are decisions of this court in favour of the petitioner. Even assuming that there are decisions of this court in favour of the petitioner, it is obvious that the concerned authorities are bound to follow the said decisions on the basis of the averments made in the paragraph 6 of the petition, this petition cannot be entertained and the same is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE