1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE P. I. L. NO.92 OF 2004 Arunpal Singh Behal. ...Petitioner. Vs. The Union Government of India & Ors. ...Respondents. .... None for the Petitioner. Mr. Vinayak Shete i/b. Ms. Poorvi Kamani for Respondent No.5. ..... CORAM : R. M. LODHA AND DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, JJ. July 12, 2006. P.C. The Petitioner is not present. However, we perused the Writ Petition and the reliefs prayed therein. The Writ Petition is founded on the newspaper report dated 15th April 2004. Though in para 3 of the Writ Petition, it is stated that on 15th April 2004, the Petitioner read a news report in the newspaper of Respondent No.5 (Indian Express), the said news report is not placed on record. The Counsel for Respondent No.5 placed before us the copy of the report dated 14th April 2004 that appeared in The Indian Express, Mumbai Division. For the sake of convenience we marked the newspaper report tendered by the Counsel for Respondent No.5 as “X”. Save and except the said report, there is 2 no reliable material to show that Respondent No.1 to 4 intend to sell or release the bulk terminal of Jawahar Nehru Port Trust. The Writ Petition is founded on vague allegations and, therefore, does not deserve to be entertained. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. ( R. M. Lodha, J.) ( Dr.D. Y. Chandrachud, J.)