IN

IN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL

CRIMINAL

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL

CRIMINAL

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1300 OF 2005

WRIT PETITION NO.1300 OF 2005

WRIT PETITION NO.1300 OF 2005

Robert Lobo.

... Petitioner

Versus.

State of Maharashtra & others.

... Respondents.

Shri Shashikant Bhatt with Shri Ravindra Sharma for the

Petitioner.

Ms.Sangeeta Shinde, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

CORAM

CORAM

CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J.

: ABHAY S. OKA, J.

: ABHAY S. OKA, J.

DATED

DATED

DATED : 6th June, 2005.

: 6th June, 2005.

: 6th June, 2005.

P.C.:

P.C.:

P.C.:

1.

Heard

the

learned

Counsel

appearing

for

the

Petitioner

and

the

learned

A.P.P.

for

the

State.

The

challenge

in

this

petition

is

to

the

showcause

notice

issued

under

section

111

of

the

Code

of

Criminal

Procedure,

1973,

calling

upon

the

Petitioner

to

showcause

as

to

why

action

under

sections

107

and

117

of

the said Code should not be taken against the

Petitioner.

2.

The

learned

Counsel

appearing

for

the

Petitioner

submitted

that

there

is

no

assertion

in

the

showcause

notice

that

the

Petitioner

was

responsible

for

the

breach

of

peace

and

tranquillity

of

the

area

and

that

unless

he

was

proceeded

against

under

Chapter

proceedings,

peace

cannot

be

restored

in

the

society.

He

has

placed

reliance

on

a

decision

of

this

Court

::: 2 :

2 :

2 :

reported in 2002 (3) LJSOFT page 22 ( Javed Hasan Sanghe

v/s. State of Maharashtra & others.).

3.

The

learned

A.P.P.

has

opposed

the

Petition

by

contending

that

the

challenge

is

only

to

the

showcause

notice and the Petitioner could have filed reply and

contested the showcause notice.

4.

I

have

considered

the

rival

submissions.

The

decision

of

this

Court

in

the

case

Javed

Hasan

(supra)

relied

upon

by

the

learned

Counsel

for

the

Petitioner

holds

that

normally

writ

petition

will

not

lie

for

challenging

a

showcause

notice.

Considering

the

assertions

made

in

the

notice

which

was

the

subject

matter

of

challenge

before

this

Court,

this

Court

interfered with the showcause notice in the said

decision.

5.

In

the

present

case,

the

dispute

between

the

parties

appears

to

be

based

on

leave

and

licence

agreements

which

are

annexed

to

the

petition.

The

Petitioner

has

not

filed

a

reply

to

the

showcause

notice.

The

learned

Counsel

appearing

for

the

Petitioner

pointed

out

that

though

on

21st

April

2005

the

concerned

officer

was

present in his office, on subsequent dates he was not

available.

6.

As

the

challenge

in

the

petition

is

to

the

showcause

::: 3 :

3 :

3 :

notice,

I

am

not

inclined

to

entertain

the

petition.

However,

considering

the

peculiar

facts

of

the

case,

it

will

have

to

be

directed

that

if

any

adverse

order

is

passed

by

the

concerned

officer,

the

same

shall

not

be

acted

upon

for

a

period

of

two

weeks

from

the

date

of

communication

of

the

said

order

to

the

Petitioner.

It

will

be

open

for

the

Petitioner

to

file

a

reply

to

the

showcause notice within a period of three weeks from

today.

7. Hence the following order is passed:

(i)

Writ Petition is rejected with no order as

to costs.

(ii)

It

will

be

open

for

the

Petitio