Disposed

Shri Gopichandra Mahadeo Mayekar v. 1. Shri M.S. Patil and Others

Bombay HC17 Aug 2004WP/1445/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner complained of threatening language used by respondents' officers during home visits. The court held that while officers should exercise restraint in language, they cannot be restrained from discharging duties to visit the petitioner's residence based on tips regarding their son.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; respondents directed to exercise restraint in language; no restraint on duty visits permitted.

Shri Gopichandra Mahadeo Mayekar Vs 1… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2004)

¶1

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.:
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE SIDE
 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1445 OF 2004
 ------------------------------------:-----------------------------------
 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders.
 coram, appearances, Court’s orders :
 or directions and Registrar’s :
 orders. :

¶2

 ------------------------------------:------------------------------------
 Mr.D.C. Mishra for Petitioner.
 Dr.F.R.Shaikh, APP.
 ----
 CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE &
 SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ.
 DATED : 17th August 2004
 P.C. :
 1. Heard Mr.Mishra for the
 Petitioner. Dr.Shaikh, APP
 appears for the Respondents.

¶3

 2. The grievance of the
 Petitioner is that the officers of
 the Respondents and the Thane
 Commissionrate, Thane and
 particularly Respondent No.1 visit
 at odd hours and use threatening
 and abusive language. As far as
 the language part is concerned,
 the same has been denied in Para-9
 of the Reply. Even so, we expect
 the Respondents to exercise

¶4

 restraint in the language that
 they use. They are required to
 visit the residence of the
 Petitioner inasmuch as son of the
 Petitioner is involved in a large
 number of cases and obviously if
 they receive any tip, then they
 are required to visit the
 Petitioner’s residence to take
 necessary action. We cannot
 restrain the Respondents from
 discharging their duties. Only
 thing is as stated above that they
 will be careful in using the
 language.

¶5

 3. In view of the above, the
 Petition is disposed of.

¶6

 (H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
 (V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)

Shri Gopichandra Mahadeo Mayekar v. 1. Shri M.S. Patil and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Gopichandra Mahadeo Mayekar v. 1. Shri M.S. Patil and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahin Afjal Tamboli Vs Police Inspector Baramati Police St. and Ors.

Shree Samarth Mitra Mandal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Suresh T.Umale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hafiz Aziz Choudhary Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vivek Kumar Mishra Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Ramling Malhari Hinge and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra