Crimeophobia – A Criminology Firm Vs Ministry of Animal Husbandry and Dairy Development and Ors. (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court dismissed the PIL filed by a self-styled criminology firm observing that no mandamus can be issued merely for enforcing a particular thought of an individual or an organization, if it is not supported by any legal premise.
Facts- The PIL petition has been filed by a self-styled Criminology Firm through its founder who is allegedly a Criminologist, named Mr. Snehil Dhall. In the opening paragraph of the Synopsis presented in this petition, the petitioner states that the petition should be considered as an expert opinion in terms of Section 45 of the Evidence Act, as the founder of the petitioner firm is a qualified criminologist/crime expert who urges to the Court for issuing directions for establishing an Anti-Organized Crime Unit within the framework of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOCA) and United Nations Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC).
Conclusion- A writ of mandamus is issued by the superior Courts where infringement of any legal right is established. No mandamus can be issued merely for enforcing a particular thought of an individual or an organization, if it is not supported by any legal premise. Prayers made in the PIL petition against the UNICEF (United Nations Organization) and New Zealand, cannot be entertained by the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The other prayers relating to establishment of ‘Anti-Organized Crime Unit’ or SIT or for establishing ‘Transnational Sanatan Commission’ or ‘Maharashtra Cave Temple Commission’ appear to be an outcome of fancies of the petitioner for the reason that no factual or legal basis, whatsoever, has been laid in the PIL petition.
