The Vidarbha Press ... vs The State Of Mah.Thr.Secr.Mumbai ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4087 Bom

 Judgment.                                               wp706.05

                                 1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, 
                  NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.



            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 706  OF 2005.



 1. The Vidarbha  Press Club,
 Pusad, District Yavatmal,
 through its President 
 Shri Yunus s/o Abdul Gani Sheikh,
 Aged about 50 years,
 Occupation - Journalist,
 Resident of behind Manik Talkies,
 Pusad, District Yavatmal.

 2.Shri Raju s/o Bapurao Dahake,
 Aged about 48 years, Occupation
 Journalist, resident of Shrirampur,
 Tahsil Pusad, District Yavatmal.         ..... PETITIONERS.


                               VERSUS 


 1. The State of Maharashtra,
 through its Principal Secretary,
 Department of Home, Mantralaya,
 Mumbai - 400 032.

 2. The Director General of Police,
 Police Head Quarters,
 Colaba, Mumbai.

 3. The Deputy Inspector General
 of Police, Amravati Region,




::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2017             ::: Downloaded on - 08/07/2017 01:01:47 :::
  Judgment.                                                           wp706.05

                                        2


 Amravati.

 4. The Superintendent of Police,
 Yavatmal, District Yavatmal.

 5. The Sub Divisional Police Officer,
 Pusad, District Yavatmal.

 6. The Police Station Officer,
 Police Station Pusad (City), 
 District Yavatmal.

 7. The Police Station Officer,
 Police Station Pusad (Rural),
 District Yavatmal.

 8. The Regional Transport Authority
 R.T.O. Office, Camp Amravati,
 District Amravati.

 9. The Maharashtra State Road
 Transport Corporation, through
 its Managing Director, Mumbai
 central, Mumbai.                             ..... RESPONDENTS.


                         --------------------------

Mr. Deshpande, Advocate h/f. Mr. F.T. Mirza, Advocate for the Petitioners.

Mrs. K.S. Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 8.

--------------------------

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND ROHIT B. DEO , JJ.

                               DATE         :  JULY 06, 2017.





  Judgment.                                                           wp706.05

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)

This Criminal Writ Petition has been registered as a

Public Interest Litigation. Prayers made by the petitioners are

to take necessary steps to curb illegal transport and to direct the

respondents not to provide shelter to illegal liquor traders,

producers and keepers of gambling dens.

2. This Court has passed a speaking order on

23.12.2005, 25.01.2006 and thereafter on 01.03.2006 when

Rule came to be issued. In those orders, amount of

compensation payable to victims of accidents during such

transport has been quantified.

3. In absence of any other data on record, no further

orders are called for at this stage.

4. Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel holding for

Advocate Mirza, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, is

Judgment. wp706.05

however, seeking time to place on record specific instances. He

submits that illegal transport business is still thriving and there

are no proper checks and measures to stop it.

5. Mrs. Joshi, learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent

nos. 1 to 8 is opposing any adjournment. She points out that

this Criminal Writ Petition is pending since 2005 and after 12

years, new facts cannot be allowed to be added to it.

6. We find that the grievance in Criminal Writ Petition

about illegal transport is general in nature, except for an

accident, which then occurred and provided cause for

entertaining this as a Public Interest Litigation, no other specific

instance has been pressed into service. If illegal transport still

continues, registration number of vehicles involved therein;

whether there are any repetitive offenders and whether the

police/ transport authorities have taken any action apart from

imposing find against them, therefore, needs to be examined.

Both the petitioners claim to be journalists. They can easily

access this information or procure it even under Right to

Judgment. wp706.05

Information Act. They can also bring it to the notice of the

appropriate Authority, including this Court in appropriate

jurisdiction.

7. However, in present matter, we are satisfied that

appropriate orders are already passed.

8. In so far as the general prayer for not harboring

illegal liquor business or gambling business is concerned,

respondents have pointed out that the petitioner no.2 himself

runs a club in the name of his father. Game of card is played

therein. According to respondents he runs a gambling house.

Petitioner no.2 has not filed any counter thereto. The issue no

doubt is disputed one and this Court has not taken cognizance

of prayer in relation to liquor business or gambling den in any

of its earlier orders.

9. In view of this dispute, we are also not inclined to

look into that prayer in present matter.

Judgment. wp706.05

10. Accordingly we make Rule absolute in terms of

orders dated 25.01.2006 and 01.03.2006 already passed in the

matter. In so far as prayer (iv) is concerned, we dismiss the

Writ Petition. Thus, Writ Petition is partly allowed and

disposed of. No costs.

                        JUDGE                                  JUDGE



 Rgd.