ARUN GULAB GAVLI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the learned Counsel: Shri R.W. Adik for the petitioner Arun Gavli and the Advocate -General Shri C.J. Sawant for the Respondents.

(2.) THIS Petition was heard along with companion Writ Petition No. 364 of 1999 filed by Ramesh Jagdish Sharma for whom we have heard the learned Counsel Shri S.M. Gupte and the learned Advocate -General for the respondents. Since the petitions raised common questions of law, by consent, they were heard together. However, since the facts differ, they are disposed of by two separate Judgments. By consent, however, this Judgment will also cover the legal contentions that are raised in Criminal Writ Petition No. 364 of 1999.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the contentions raised before us, it is necessary to set out, in brief, the pleadings. In the petition which is filed under Article 226, invoking the provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution, as also the provisions of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, the reliefs prayed for are as under: - 21. The Petitioner, therefore, prays that: (A) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or any other appropriate writ and/or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents to grant police protection to the petitioner at his own cost and further direct them to keep the police vigil at the places mentioned by him in his letter dated 21st December, 1996 at Exh. I. (B) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, the Respondents be directed to provide police protection to the petitioner forthwith on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (C) Pass any such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. It would be evident from the above that, the relief in terms of prayer (A) is in two parts: - (i) issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant police protection to the petitioner at his own cost; (ii) further direction to the respondents to keep police vigil at the place mentioned by the petitioner in his letter dt. 21st December, 1996 - Exh. 'I' to the Petition. Turning to Exhibit 'I' dated 21st December, 1996, the places mentioned are: - (i) The main entrance of Dagadi Chawl. Byculla, Mumbai where the petitioner resides; (ii) The Shankar - Parvati Temple near the Dagadi Chawl where the petitioner resides; and (iii) At all places such as the Sessions Courts, the Magistrate's Courts, the residence of the petitioner's relatives, his native place and the religious places he visits. In short, the petitioner demands armed police protection at all the above mentioned places at all times. Prayer (B) is an elaboration of prayer (A).