Satish Vishwanath Lohar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2025:BHC-AUG:20120-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 26 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.330 OF 2025 Satish Vishwanath Lohar, Age 52 yrs., Occ. Talathi, R/o Ravangaon, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.

... Petitioner ... Versus ...

The State of Maharashtra Through the Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.

The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Office, Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.

The Collector, Collector Office, Latur.

The Secretary, Mining Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.

In-charge Police Station, Police Station, Udgir (Rural), Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.

... Respondents ...

Ms. Akansha V. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate h/f Mr. A.V. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S.A. Gaikwad, APP for respondent Nos.1 to 6 ...

CORAM :

SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATE :

28th JULY, 2025 ORDER :

( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) Present petitioner is serving as Talathi at village Rawangaon, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. By way of this writ petition he prays for police protection to be granted to him and he comes with a specific prayer that the said police protection should be of CRPF or SRPF. The second prayer is in respect of directions to respondent Nos.1 to 4 for investigation into the illegal business of exploration and transportation of the minor minerals without royalty, which is within his own jurisdiction.

Heard learned Advocate for petitioner and learned APP, who waives notices for all respondents.

It appears that when the present petitioner was serving as Talathi at Telipura Balapur, Tq. Balapur, Dist. Akola by virtue of order in Writ Petition

No.1008 of 2012 decided on 22.03.2012 police protection was provided to him. Now, when he has taken charge as Talathi of village Nagalgaon, he found that certain persons are illegally excavating and transporting the minor minerals. It appears that since July, 2022 he has raised the said topic with his superiors and on 22.09.2022 on the basis of his application, Tahsildar had made communication to Police Inspector, Police Station, Udgir (Rural) for providing police protection to petitioner. He had stated that one Ravi Jadhav, who is in this illegal activity, had given dash to his vehicle with an intention to kill. According to petitioner, no offence has been registered. Even if for the sake of arguments it is accepted that some illegal activity is going on, which the petitioner wants to resist; yet, there is a procedure prescribed.

The application which Tahsildar had made to Police Inspector, Police Station, Udgir (Rural) on 22.09.2022 is too cryptic. The date, time and place where the incident had occurred has not been stated. After 22.09.2022 it appears that when no action was taken, the petitioner has not approached or made complaint to Superintendent of Police, Latur for any action nor thereafter he had approached to Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur or Udgir, as the case may be, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A separate application appears to be not filed with Superintendent of Police, Latur for police protection.

granted him way back in 2012 under the orders of this Court, it cannot be continued for indefinite period. There is a procedure prescribed for granting police protection. A committee is established and the committee would take decision to provide police protection. The said committee is duty bound to assess the situation, periodically and if there is no such situation prevalent which requires continuation of the protection, then, the said committee may discontinue the police protection. When no such steps have been taken, none of the prayers can be allowed. Here, the petitioner is a Talathi, who should have the knowledge about the procedure and he has already in fact, exhausted the said remedy. Now, he cannot give go by to the same. He cannot insist that police personnel from a particular group or agency i.e.

CRPF or SRPF should only be given to him. No case is made out for exercise of constitutional powers of this Court and, therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed at the threshold. However, still we grant liberty to petitioner to approach the appropriate authority with an application, if he is of the opinion that he needs protection, then such application to be filed within a period of one month from today by the petitioner and the said committee/competent authority to take the decision on such application within a month thereafter. ( SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.