HC won't intervene in Thackeray arrest

HC won't intervene in Thackeray arrest
EXPRESS NEWS SERVICE

MUMBAI, JULY 21: The Bombay High Court today summarily dismissed a petition seeking to restrain the State government from arresting Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray and Samajwadi Party chief Abu Asim Azmi apprehending mass-scale riots, arson and destruction in its wake.

The division bench of Chief Justice B P Singh and Justice N J Pandya held that the court cannot interfere in the State government's decision to prosecute an individual. However in their order, they added that the affected person could take recourse of challenging the same in the court of law.

The petition was filed by 77 year old Dadar resident Diwakar Upalekar against the Deputy Chief Minister, Commissioner of Police and the State of Maharastra. Upalekar, clarifying that he has no political affiliations, said the decision was likely to create serious problems, which could affect the common man's life, liberty and property for no fault of his.

Upalekar stated he has based his opinion on the press-reports and T V clippings and learnt that Thackeray's supporters have observed a bandh in various parts of the State and there has already been destruction of private and public property.

The petitioner prayed that the court issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order calling for records and files to enquire into the legality and propriety of the decision and to quash or set aside the decision of the Deputy Chief Minister in the interest of society at large. Further that pending hearing and final disposal of the writ petition, the respondents be restrained from arresting Thackeray or Azmi.

The petitioner's counsel Vaijanath Vaze asking for an ad interim relief said,``A tense situation is prevailing. I am feeling helpless and there is uncertainty with newspaper reports on the impending arrests'' to which Justice Pandya admonished,``Stop reading newspapers if you are feeling uncertain. We are rejecting the petition right away.'' Vaze further pleaded,``The repercussions of the arrests will be serious.'' Justice Pandya retorted,``We are not concerned.''

However in their order the bench observed, "We fail to understand how this court can quash such a decision of the government and examine in a proceeding of this nature the question of legality and propriety of the decision of the government to prosecute a particular person. If a prosecution is ultimately launched, the person aggrieved may challenge the same in accordance with law in appropriate proceedings. This writ petition is rejected.''

Advocate-general G E Vahanvati appeared for the State government.