1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 153 OF 2006 Varsha Laxmanrao Deshpande ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar for the Petitioner Mr. P.M. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Ganesh K. Sovani and Mr. A.K. Naik for Respondents No. 3 to 14. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE: APRIL 8, 2009 P.C.:- This P.I.L. was filed mainly expressing the grievance that certain bandhs were called in the District of Satara at different points of time, which resulted in inconvenience to the public and also which resulted in loss of working hours, and certain losses to the public property were also caused. 2. This P.I.L. was mainly filed only on the strength of a judgment 2 of this Court, being B.G. Deshmukh & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition No. 2827 of 2003 dated 23rd July, 2004. 3. Various orders came to be passed by this Court, and affidavits also came to be filed by the respondents. For three bandhs which, according to the respondents, were contrary to the directions given by this Court, three cases were registered, and people involved in those bandhs were booked for various offences. An affidavit has also been filed, which, in details, mentions the steps that were taken by the respondents before the bandh, during the bandh and after the bandh. Therefore, we feel, prima facie, that substantial compliance of the judgment of this Court was made. 4. The second aspect of the matter, to which our attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that though the judgment was passed in the year 2004 by this Court, necessary steps by equipping itself with the revision power were not taken by the State. 5. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Government 3 by the Principal Secretary (Special) to the Government of Maharashtra, in which it is stated that the Law and Judiciary Department is being consulted as to how to incorporate these guidelines in the form of legislation, and necessary action would be taken in consultation with the Law and Judiciary Department. This Court, by order dated 21st January, 2009, had taken note of this fact, and had observed as under:- “4. The learned A.G.P. wants time to seek instruction in the matter. It will be proper and advisable that the State incorporates these directions in the appropriate legislation under its rule making powers which is always entrusted by the enactment like Bombay Police Act to the Executive. We make this clear as the court cannot issue any order / direction or writ to the legislature but the Executive is within the purview of the writ jurisdiction of this Court for the said purpose.” We are conscious that this Court cannot direct the respondents to make any revision, nor we can direct the respondents to frame rules under a particular Act which, again, is a legislative function. But we are sure that this Court can always insist on implementation of the judgment of this Court, which has become final. Therefore, even if the State does not frame any rules to incorporate the directions given in Deshmukh judgment (supra), even then, they are bound to follow the judgment. 6. In these circumstances of the matter, we direct the Chief Secretary to the Government to issue a circular, informing all District 4 Magistrates and also the Superintendents of Police / Commissioners in the Districts and Collectors, who are responsible to implement the judgment of this Court, about the judgment of this Court in Deshmukh, and any violation of the judgment, if brought to the notice of this Court, would expose these officers for contempt of this Court. 7. With these observations, the P.I.L. is disposed of. BILAL NAZKI, J. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.