Ramesh Ranchhoddas Joshi v. Union Of India And ORS

1/3 Vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (ST) No. 45 OF 2015 Ramesh Ranchohoddas Joshi ....Petitioner Vs.

Union of India and Ors.

....Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 25 OF 2015 IN CRIMINAL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (ST) No. 45 OF 2015 Ronak Chandraprakash Agarwal ...Applicant/Intervenor In the matter between Ramesh Ranchohoddas Joshi ....Petitioner Vs.

Union of India and Ors.

....Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 26 OF 2015 IN CRIMINAL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (ST) No. 45 OF 2015 Shree Dheerajkumar Honshila Shankar Dubey ...Applicant/Intervenor In the matter between Ramesh Ranchohoddas Joshi ....Petitioner Vs.

Union of India and Ors.

....Respondents ****** Mr. Yogesh Joshi i/b. Mr. Ramesh Joshi for the Petitioner Ms. Rebecca Gonsalvez a/w. Chetan Alai for Respondent No.1 Ms. S.V. Sonawane -APP for the Respondent State Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Counsel a/w.Mr. Abad Ponda a/w. M.G. Agre a/w. Urvashi Nayak i/b. G.GB. Kedia for Respondent No.4

2/3 ****** CORAM : V. M. KANADE & Mrs. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ DATE : SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 P.C. :

1.

The grievance of the Petitioner is that Respondent No.4, who is popularly known as 'RadheMaa', carried a Trident (Trishul) in hand in the aeroplane and traveled from Aurangabad to Mumbai and she was flashing that Trident in the flight even after she got down. It is submitted that this is contrary to the Rules and Regulations, which are framed by the Airport Authorities and no FIR has been lodged by the police against her.

2.

However, now it is submitted that FIR has been registered against her.

3.

On the other hand, Shri Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.4 has submitted that the Trident which was carrying by her, was not of an iron Trident but it was a wooden Trident.

4.

In view of this, it is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the Petitioner that the Court may monitor the investigation.

3/3 5.

We are afraid that we are not in a position to accede the request made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. In our view, the PIL in fact, cannot be said to be a public interest litigation since it is an individual centric. In any way, the grievance of the Petitioner does not survive since the FIR has been registered.

6.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the PIL. 7.

Criminal PIL is allowed to be withdrawn and accordingly disposed of.

8.

In view of the disposal of the PIL, Criminal Applications viz. Criminal Application No. 25 of 2015 and Criminal Application No. 26 of 2015 filed therein also do not survive and are accordingly disposed of.

Mrs. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J.

V.M. KANADE, J.

Vaishali Tikam