Allowed

Nilkantheshwar Kala, Krida, Sanskrutik and Manoranjan Mandal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Jan 2014WP/3570/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three societies challenged police harassment regarding club registration under the Bombay Police Act. The bench allowed the petitions in terms of a para from an earlier identical judgment, directing police not to interfere with lawful activities.

What did the court decide?

The petitions are allowed; police directed not to interfere with lawful activities of the petitioner clubs.

Nilkantheshwar Kala, Krida, Sanskrutik and Manoranjan… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

SMT 1/2 36 WP 357013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3570 OF 2013

¶3

Nilkantheshwar Kala, Krida, Sanskrutik and Manoranjan Mandal

¶4

... Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and ors.

¶7

... Respondents

¶8

AND

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 4478 OF 2013

¶10

Valmiki Kala, Krida, Sanskrutik and Manoranjan Mandal ... Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

The State of Maharashtra and ors. ... Respondents

¶13

AND

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO. 4479 OF 2013

¶15

Suvaranyug Sanskrutik And Krida Mandal ... Petitioner Vs.

¶16

The State of Maharashtra and ors. ... Respondents

¶17

Ms. Rashmi Gagwani i/by. Mr. Ganesh K. Gole, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶18

Mr. H.J. Dedhia, A.P.P. for the State.

¶19

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & V.L.ACHLIYA, JJ. DATED: 7^th January, 2014.

¶20

P.C.:

¶21

It is contended that petitioner is running a registered society under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is a social group carrying out social activities. The petitioner contended that police is harassing and interfering in the functioning of the society and demanding and insisting on registration of club or license/permit under the provisions of section 33(w) of the Bombay Police Act.

¶22

SMT 2/2 36 WP 357013

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court had considered such identical case in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3942 of 2011 and passed order dated 18^th January, 2012, which is annexed at Page 90 of Writ Petition No. 3570 of 2013.

¶24

The learned A.P.P. submits that the petitions could be disposed of in the light of the order passed by this Court as referred above.

¶25

We have perused order passed by the learned Single Judge on 18th January, 2012, in Criminal Writ Petition 3942 of 2011. Para 4 of the said order read as under :

¶26

“4. It is directed that the police authorities shall not interfere with the lawful activities of the petitionerclub. This order will not preclude the police authorities from taking any action against the club, f any legal requirement is not fulfilled by it. Similarly, the police authorities will not be precluded from taking action against the club, its employees or any of its members if any gambling or any other activity is done in the premises which is prohibited under the provisions of the law, in such case, the police can take action according to law.”

¶27

The A.P.P. submits that written or oral order as alleged by the petitioner is not passed or issued by any of the authority.

¶28

The petitions are allowed in terms of para 4, as quoted above.

¶29

(V.L.ACHLIYA, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Nilkantheshwar Kala, Krida, Sanskrutik and Manoranjan Mandal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilkantheshwar Kala, Krida, Sanskrutik and Manoranjan Mandal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Janardan Saju Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prakash Irana Yamgavali and Ors. Vs Dy. Regional Transport Officer and Ors.

Shobha Kashinath Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vijayanand Pandurang Ghadage Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suvaranyug Sanskrutik and Krida Mandal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Karan Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.