Adarsh Kala, Krida Sanskrutik Va Manoranjan Mandal v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 359 OF 2015 Adarsh Kala, Krida, Sanskrutik va Manoranjan Mandal, Kothali .. Petitioner v/s.

State of Maharashtra, through Jayshingpur Police Station ..Respondent Mr. Manoj A. Patil for the petitioner Mrs. S.V. Sonawane, APP for the respondent State CORAM: RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

DATED: 25th FEBRUARY, 2015.

P.C.

1.

The petitioner claims to be a Mandal registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860. The petitioner is engaged in social activities such as Cricket, Football, Vollyball, Tenis, Badminton and such other sitting games etc. The petitioner states that due to continuous harassment by the local police, it has become imperative for the petitioner to ask for relief as claimed in the petition. The relief claimed in the petition is to direct

respondent not to enter the premises of the petitioner Trust without following due process of law and/or without any prior intimation/notice in the interest of justice. 2.

Mrs. Sonawane, learned APP submitted that no such blanket relief can be granted.

3.

In our opinion, the relief claimed in prayer clause (a) has been articulated in such a manner that the effect of granting it, would be granting blanket relief to the petitioner. In our opinion, if the local police has reason to believe that some illegal activities are being conducted in the premises of the petitioner trust, to unravel that or to immediately stop those activities, they are competent to enter the premises without giving notice to the petitioner. That action would nevertheless be without due procedure of law. In other words, we would only observe that the local police are free to enter the premises of the petitioner by following due process of law and may do so without giving prior

notice/intimation in the given situation where they are authorised to do so by law.

4.

We make it clear that none of the observations made in this order are expression of opinion either way on the assertion made by the petitioner that they are conducting activities which are only legitimate and permissible activities. We are not entering upon that discussion as it is not necessary to do so for the disposal of this petition.

5.

Subject to above, the petition is disposed of. (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) ( RANJIT MORE, J.)