IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO.

_____ OF 2011

In the matter of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; And In the matter of Article 14,

19(1)(a) (c) and (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India;

And In the matter of protection of interest of 15 Lakh panelists

spread all over India; And In the matter of Speak Asia Online Pte Ltd., Singapore; And In the matter of order by dated Honble

14/11/2011

passed

Supreme Court of India appointing mediator to settle the dispute

between the parties.

1.

All India Speak Asia Panelist Association, 7, Ram Saket, Bhagoji Keer Road, Mahim (West), Mumbai-400 016

2.

Melwyn Crasto, aged 53 years, 7, Ram Saket, Bhagoji Keer Road, Mahim (West), Mumbai-400 016

3.

Ashok Bahirwani, aged 51 years, 7, Ram Saket, Bhagoji Keer Road, Mahim (West), Mumbai-400 016 .... Petitioners

Versus

1.

State of Maharashta, through its Home Secretary, Matralaya, Mumbai-400 023

2.

Commissioner of Police, through Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai Police Headquarter, Mumbai 400001

3.

Commissioner of Police, through CID-RCIU, Door No. 23-8-4, Adi Sheshaiah Street, Near A.K.T.P. High School, S. N. Puram, Vijayavada-11 .... Respondents

TO, THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION HONBLE JUDGES OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONERS ABOVENAMED The petitionerS, abovenamed, most respectively beg to submit as hereunder: 1. The Petitioner No. 1 is an association of persons who are citizens of India and Petitioner No. 2 and 3 are citizens of India who are President and Secretary respectively of the Petitioner No.1, all having their addresses as shown in the cause title hereof. The Respondent No. 1 is the state of Maharashtra and Respondent No. 2 is the functionary of Respondent No. 2. Both Respondents fall under the

definition of the State as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

2.

This petition is being filed to challenge the impugned act and conduct of the Respondents, more particularly, the Respondent No. 2 of harassing 15 Lakh panelists of Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, represented by Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 and 3 being its office bearers, in the guise of investigation. The Petitioners submit that they are victimised only because they are supporting the process of amicable settlement of dispute with Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited as initiated by Honble Supreme Court of India by its order dated 14/11/2011 through mediation by Former Chief Justice of Supreme Court Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti.

3.

The

Petitioners

state

that

the

action

initiated

by

Respondent No. 2 against the panelists who participated in the activities of Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited in order to supplement their income, is tainted and malafide also in view of the fact that Honble Supreme Court is already seized of the matter in dispute which led to filing of complaints/FIRs against the company, Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited and others and subsequent investigation into same by the Respondent No. 2 herein.

4.

The Petitioner No. 1 is an association of panelists of Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore and Petitioner No. 2 and 3 are the office bearers of the Petitioner No. 1 above named, who participated in the activities conducted by Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore and earned reward points. The present Petition is being filed on behalf of 15 Lakh panelists spread all over the country for reasons more elaborately set out hereunder. The

Petitioners have received thousands of e-mails in support, authorising Petitioners to initiate appropriate legal action for protection of 15 Lakh panelists. The Petitioners have enclosed one of such emails, which is representative of the sentiments expressed by most of the panelists. Annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit A and Exhibit B are the copies of the resolutions both dated August 14, 2011. Annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit C is the list of

members of the ad-hoc committee and Exhibit D is the copy of e-mail dated August 14, 2011.

5.

The Petitioners state that the Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore carries on business in India through a business portal www.Speak Asiaonline.com. The business conducted by the Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited,

Singapore is aimed at creating a community of consumers who can use their collective bargaining power to get unprecedented price advantages in goods and services procured through the portal of the Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore. For that purpose, the Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore is creating a community of empowered consumers who are called panelists and who earn rewards points by participating in various activities of the Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore such as filling surveys, product referrals or sales, advertising based surveys, self development training programs etc. on the Website. The panelists earn reward points for participating with their focussed and valuable opinions in the online surveys conducted by Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore, as a part of its business of panel exchange and other activities of Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited,

Singapore. These reward points can then be redeemed by the panelists to purchase different products and services as well as subscriptions on the Website. Upon request of

the panelists, the unutilized reward points can also be transferred to his/ her bank account by Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore.

6.

The Petitioners state that Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore started its operations in February / March, 2010 and till May 12, 2011, there was no problem of any kind whatsoever, and all the panelists were receiving timely payments. The Petitioners state that for the last six months or there about, a concerted campaign has been launched by some business rivals of Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore, through the media and other forums with the sole aim of destroying its credibility and financial standing. The Petitioners state that if such ulterior motives are allowed to succeed, the result will be disastrous for the 15 Lakh panelists of Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore, including the present Petitioners.

7.

The Petitioners state that in fact, said Television Channels are doing a great disservice to the 15 Lakh panelists who are associated with Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore. The Petitioners state that these panelists are unemployed youth, underemployed persons and house wives and those who wish to supplement their income by associating with the activities of Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore. The Petitioners state that Lakhs of

persons have earned handsomely from the association with Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore. The Petitioners state that it is relevant to note that not even a handful of the 15 Lakh panelists of Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore have registered any protest anywhere in the country that they have lost money by associating with Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore. On the

contrary, the Petitioners assert that Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore has dutifully made every effort to make payments to its 15 Lakh panelists within the severe constraints created by the adverse media publicity.

8.

The Petitioners state that the motivated and mala fide allegations made against Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore have had the effect of virtually crippling its operations. The Petitioners state that before the motivated campaign begun against Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore, there was no problem of any kind whatsoever and all the 15 Lakh panelists were being well looked after. The Petitioners state that the business rivals of Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore have been making serious efforts to galvanize different instrumentalities of the State to take action against Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore so as to stop it from functioning. The Petitioners state that on account of this adverse publicity, Reserve Bank of India has specifically put an embargo on

remittance of funds into India which was meant for distribution amongst the panelists specifically circular dated May 23, 2011 issued by Reserve Bank of India to all schedule commercial banks. The Petitioners state that the result of this measure is that panelists like the present Petitioners cannot be paid the amounts due to them. The Petitioners state that they have been informed that Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore and others filed Writ Petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the RBI circular issued against Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore and against unjustified freezing of the accounts of master distributors of HVP. The Honble Bombay High Court was pleased to direct the Reserve Bank of India to take into account the representation of Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore and give them opportunity of hearing. Annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit - E is the copy of the RBI circular dated May 23, 2011 Exhibit - F and order dated July 14, 2011.

9.

The Petitioners state that that such is the reach and power of the business rivals that they have succeeded in forcing the principal banker of Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore in Singapore, United Overseas Bank, to close its account in Singapore. The unfortunate result of these illegal activities is that payments to over 2 Lakh panelists in India amounting to over Rs 150 Crore (about $ 40

10

million), have been blocked. The Petitioners state that the net result of the freezing of accounts in India and the closure of the principal account in Singapore has led to the suspension of the entire business activity, which is detrimental to the vital interests of the 15 Lakh panelists in India.

10.

The Petitioners state that the as per media reports, a PIL No. 30 of 2011 was filed in the Criminal Appellate Side of this Honble Court making wild allegations against Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore without impleading them as party respondent. The Petitioners state that two orders dated July 13 and 18, 2011 came to be passed. The Petitioners state that in pursuance of the assurance given to this Honble Court, the Economic Offences Wing

(Mumbai) has initiated investigation. The Petitioners have come to know through media reports that one person in Mumbai filed a complaint before the EOW in Mumbai who has received all payments till May 2011. An FIR under Section 420 and 406 of IPC and Section 3 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 was registered. of The Petitioners Asia state Online that Pte. bringing the top

executives Singapore

the

Speak

Limited, entire

were

taken

into

custody

operations of the company to halt. However, they were

11

subsequently released on bail. The Petitioner states that the Respondent No. 2 has not filed any charge-sheet so far, inspite of the fact that they started investigation sometime in the month of July, 2011.

11.

The Petitioner states that neither the Respondent No. 3 nor the media nor the business rivals of Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore has suffered any loss by cessation of business of Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore. The Petitioners state that the 15 Lakh panelists are the sole sufferers. The Petitioners state that in order to protect the interest of 15 Lakh panelists, we are approaching this Honble Court by way of the present Petition. Annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit G and H are the copies of the orders dated July 13th and 18th, 2011, passed by this Honble Court. Annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit I is the copy of the FIR No. 153/2011.

12.

The Petitioners state that only Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited, Singapore has been targeted for this

discriminatory treatment and no such action has been taken by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 against other companies such as The Admatrix, Channel One Global Net, Ozone Networking, Pro On Line Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and Event Pvt. Ltd., Myvidetalk, RMP, NMART etc. doing similar business in India.

12

13.

The

Petitioners

state

that

being

aggrieved

by

the

circumstances stated above the Petitioners filed a PIL bearing Lodging No. 51/2011 challenging the actions of the Respondents therein. The Petitioner No. 2 also filed an intervention Application bearing No. APPL/19/2011 in

criminal PIL bearing No. 30/2011 which is pending before this Honble Court. The petitioners crave leave to refer to and rely upon the aforesaid proceedings, when produced.

14.

The Petitioners state that about 115 panelists filed the writ Petition (Civil) bearing No. 383/2011 seeking similar reliefs as prayed for by the Petitioner in PIL (Lodging) No. 51/2011 impleading Union of India, RBI, CBDT and EOW, Mumbai, as the parties to the said Writ Petition. Inspite of service of notice from the registry of Honble Supreme Court, the Respondent No. 2 preferred to remain ex-parte. The Honble Supreme Court was pleased to pass an order dated 14/11/2011 which reads as under

We have heard learned counsel for parties. In our considered view, it is a fit case where a serious attempt should be made for an

amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties through the intervention of learned mediator. We, accordingly, request Honble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti (Former Chief Justice of

13

India) to explore possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties and submit a report to this are Court after the The to mediation learned fix his

proceedings mediator

concluded. be at

would

liberty

fee/remuneration. We direct the parties to appear before Honble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti of 21st November, 2011 at 11.00 a.m. Lists the matter immediately after receiving the report from learned mediator. A copy of this order be sent to learned mediator within two days through a special messenger.

Annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit - J is the copy of the said order dated 14/11/2011 passed by Honble Supreme Court.

15.

The Petitioners state that on 24/11/2011 at about 7.50 a.m. the Petitioner No. 2 has been picked up from his residence by the officer of Respondent No. 2 supposedly for interrogation/enquiry. It is pertinent to mention here that no notice under Section 161, Cr. P.C. was served upon the Petitioner No. 2. Further, the officer of Respondent No. 2 also visited residence of Petitioner No. 3 who is the

14

Secretary of All India Speak Asia Panelists Association, inquiring about him. Since he was not available, the officer of Respondent No. 2 could not catch him. So far, no notice under Section 161, Cr. P.C. has been issued to Petitioner No. 3 also. The Petitioners state that when the Advocates for the Petitioners were informed by the relatives of Petitioner No. 2, one of their Advocates personally spoke to Mr. B.G. Shelke, Investigation Officer, EOW, Mumbai at about 12.15 p.m. on the same day and informed him that the Petitioner No. 2 had moved an intervention Application in Criminal PIL No. 30 of 2011 which is pending before the Honble High Court. The Advocate also informed Mr. Shelke that in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 383 of 2011 in which EOW, Mumbai is also one of the parties, the Honble Supreme Court has passed an order on November 14, 2011. Mr. Shelke was also informed by one of their Advocates that the Criminal PIL bearing No. 30/2011 shall be coming before the Division Bench of this Honble Court next week and the Learned Mediator appointed by the Honble Supreme Court has fixed meeting on November 28, 2011 at New Delhi. Mr. Shelke was further informed that as the office bearer of Association of Panelists, the Respondent No. 2 and 3 are supposed to remain present before this Honble Court as well as before the Learned Mediator appointed by the Honble Supreme Court in order to facilitate the process of justice.

15

16.

The Petitioners state that a letter containing the above facts and circumstances was issued by one of their Advocates to the Investigating Officer of EOW i.e. Mr. B.G. Shelke marking copy thereof to the Addl. Commissioner of Police, EOW, Mumbai. The said letter was personally delivered to by one of their Advocates of considerable standing practicing at this Honble Court in order to ensure that no high handed and hasty action is taken by the officers of Respondent No.2 and they were advised not to take any step which would precipitate the situation and throttle the process for settlement of dispute initiated by Honble Supreme Court. Annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit - K is the copy of said letter dated 24/11/2011.

17.

The Petitioners state that the Petitioner No. 2 was kept under supposed interrogation till 7.00 p.m. and inspite of making enquiries with the officers of Respondent No. 2, the Petitioners were not informed about the action going to be initiated by them against the Petitioner No. 2. The Petitioners state that surprisingly, at about 7.00 p.m. the Officers of Respondent No. 2 arrested the Petitioner No. 2 herein without informing him the reasons of his arrest. The Petitioners submit that the action initiated by the

Respondent No. 2 to arrest the Petitioner No. 2 in the manner highlighted hereinabove is contrary to the settled

16

law.

The

Petitioners

further

submit

that

inspite

of

informing the officers of Respondent No. 2 that the Honble Supreme Court is already seized of the matter, the officers of the Respondent No. 2 didnt pay any heed to the said order acted arbitrarily and arrested the Petitioner No. 2 for the reasons best known to them. The Petitioners further submit that by acting highhandedly and arbitrarily the officers of Respondent No. 2 have overreached the process of administration of justice which is already vested with the authority of Former Chief Justice of India as the mediator by Honble Supreme Court of India.

18.

The

Petitioners

state

that

the

action

initiated

by

Respondent No. 2 is not only contrary to the order passed by the Honble Supreme Court but it is intentional and in disregard of the authority of law. The Petitioners state if the Respondents carry out in the manner highlighted hereinabove, the very purpose of the process started by the Honble Supreme Court vide its order dated

14/11/2011 will be defeated. The Petitioners state that in the circumstances, the action initiated by Respondent No. 2 is patently malafide, illegal and bad in law. Under the circumstances, if the Respondent No. 2 is not restrained by this Honble Court, it would take further hasty and arbitrary actions of arresting more panelists thereby creating a situation of panic which will throttle the process

17

of settlement through mediation started by the Honble Supreme Court. Therefore, in the circumstances, the highhanded and arbitrary action started by Respondent No. 2 needs to be restrained by law and the Petitioners therefore most respectfully pray that it would be necessary and proper in the interest of justice to restrain Respondent No. 2 from going ahead with their proposed action of arresting more and more panelists.

19.

The Petitioners state that the Respondent No. 2 have failed in making out a plausible case against the executives of Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited inspite of doing thorough investigation since July 2011. The Respondent No. 2 also sealed all the offices of associates of Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited and took over all the records and information in its possession. The same is still in their custody and possession. Now from the same record, the Respondent No. 2 have started targeting the general public which constitute the panelists who participated in the surveys to supplement their income. The criteria adopted by

Respondent No. 2 to implicate the panelists is the amount of money earned by them which they are very well aware as the entire records are in their possession. The

Petitioners state that they have come to know through reliable sources that the Respondent No. 2 have prepared a long list of panelists which goes into thousands for

18

initiating action against them. This very act on the part of the Respondent No. 2 puts a question mark on the genuineness of their motive.

20.

The Petitioners state that highhanded and arbitrary action initiated by Respondent No. 2 in the face of orders passed by the Honble Supreme Court creates genuine suspicion in the mind of public at large about the motives of the Respondent No. 2. The Petitioners state that according to Respondent No. 2, the amount involved in the matter is to the tune of ` 2,000/- Crore. In view of the number of members of public and the amount of money involved, it would be necessary that the role of Respondent No. 2 in handling such a sensitive matter in most arbitrary and insensitive manner may be probed into by an independent agency, namely, Central Bureau of Investigation under the supervision of this Honble Court so that the appropriate legal action as per law may be initiated against the officers of the Respondent No. 2 found guilty.

21.

The Petitioners state that it is pertinent to mention that the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Chennai Police and the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) Delhi Police conducted investigation in the affairs of Speak Asia Online Pte using chartered accountants, IT experts, and management

expert and interviewed and interrogated officials of Speak Asia Online Pte, panelists and all interested parties. And

19

they have come to conclusion that the business of Speak Asia Online Pte. is absolutely ethical and legal. The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Chennai Police and the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) Delhi Police may please be directed by this Honble Court to produce these reports for its perusal.

22.

The Petitioners state that like Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 also started action on one complaint made by an NGO Fraud Watch. This NGO is being run by a know extortionist who is also brother of a Senior Police Office in Andhra Pradesh. If the matter is referred to Central Bureau of Investigation similar other cases of extortion done by this NGO will come to light. In this matter also official of the company Speak Asia Online Pte were arrested, interrogated and their offices searched however, not reached to any conclusion due to malafide intention. Both Respondent No.2 and 3 could not come to any conclusion because they have malafide intention of extorting money from poor panellists. The panellists have been publicly told by police officers to face arrest unless an amount is paid to them. It is public knowledge that an amount of ` 5000/- is the rate card for avoiding

harassment and arrest. It is estimated that if these corrupt police officers succeed in collecting this amount from the

20

panellists the total amount will be to the tune of ` 1500/Cr.

23.

The

Petitioners

state

that

the

complaint

on

which

Respondent No. 2 acting, has been lodged by one Navneet Khosla. Khosla is a known notorious character. He has been booked by the police on several occasions in molestation cases and there are several cases pending against him. Respondent No. 2 has used its influence to make this person Navneet Khosla lodge a complaint against the company, Speak Asia Online Pte. This will be borne by the fact that the complaint was typed in office of Respondent No. 2 at Crawford Market, Mumbai. This fact can be verified by forensic check of complaint letter and correction in complaint made which are in hand writing of officer of Respondent No.2. The most interesting aspect of the matter is this that the complaint in question was filed by Navneet Khosla at Nirmal Nagar Police Station, Bandra East, Mumbai which reached Respondent No.2 office located in Fort area and was converted into to EOW case all within an span one hours time. This prima facie establishes that the entire operation was orchestrated the Respondent No.2.

24.

The Petitioners state that there is also a nexus of between journalists belonging to main line national newspapers and

21

Respondent No. 2 to create is environment of fear among panellists helping Respondent No.2 in its nefarious design. Particularly the role of online sites Money Life needs to be investigated. These elements are blots on the face of journalist community at large and as such they need to be exposed in larger public interest. The Petitioners state that the only an agency like Central Bureau of Investigation is capable of making an impartial enquiry against these powerful section of media who are ruining the lives of millions of innocent people for their vested interest.

25.

Being aggrieved by the

actions initiated by

the

of

Respondents, the Petitioners have approached this Honble Court on the following amongst other grounds which are independent and not contrary to each other:

a)

The actions initiated by the Respondents are illegal, malafide, arbitrary and in violation of provisions of law;

b)

The acts of commission of the Respondents have resulted in a grave violation of fundamental rights of the Petitioners;

c)

That the actions initiated by Respondents against the Petitioners are contrary to the principles of natural justice;

22

d)

That the actions of the Respondents have made a mockery of the rule of law;

e)

That the actions initiated by the Respondents against the Petitioners are contrary to the facts on record;

f)

That the actions initiated by the Respondent No. 2 against the Petitioners are contrary to the

documentary evidence produced before them; g) That the actions initiated by the Respondents are overreaching the process of administration of justice initiated by the Honble Supreme Court by vesting the authority with the Former Chief Justice of India to mediate the matter and to settle the dispute between the parties finally;

h)

That the actions initiated by the Respondents are patently malafide;

i)

That the Respondents ought to have waited till the process of mediation before the Former Chief Justice of India is concluded;

j)

That the actions initiated by the Respondents against the Petitioner No. 2 are without disclosing any reasons for the same;

23

k)

That the actions of omission and commission of Respondents have led to irreparable loss and injury to 15 Lakh similarly placed panelists;

l)

That in view of the order dated 16/11/2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Honble Court, the actions initiated by Respondent No. 2 are

unwarranted and uncalled for;

m)

That as per the estimate of Respondent No. 2 that there is involvement of about ` 2,000/- Crore in the matter and the motive of Respondent No. 2 needs to be probed into by the independent agency, namely, Central Bureau of Investigation;

n)

That the hasty and arbitrary manner in which the investigation and the actions initiated by Respondent No. 2 are questionable which requires independent probe by Central Bureau of Investigation.

26.

The offices of the Respondents are situated in Mumbai. The entire cause of action for filing the Petition has arisen in Mumbai. This Honble Court, therefore, has jurisdiction to entertain, try and dispose of this Petition.

27.

There is no alternative and equally efficacious remedy available to the Petitioners. The Petitioners have filed this

24

petition promptly without any delay. The Petitioners, therefore, submit that if a writ as prayed for herein is granted then it will afford them complete and effective reliefs.

28.

The Petitioners have not filed any other Petition

proceeding relating to the subject matter of the present Petition in the Supreme Court of India or any other court in India.

29.

The Petitioners have paid fixed Court fees of Rs. 250/- on the Petition. PRAYERS

30.

In view of the facts and circumstances narrated in present writ petition and the grounds taken herein and also based on the documents annexed hereto, the petitioners herein most respectfully pray as under:(a) This Honble Court may be pleased to pass any appropriate writ or order directing the Respondent No. 2 not to take any action or to carry out any investigation against the panelists of Speak Asia Online Pte. Limited including the Petitioners until the conclusion of mediation proceeding initiated by

Honble Supreme Court vide order dated 14/11/2011 exhibited as Exhibit - J;

25

(b)

This Honble Court may be pleased to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to probe into the purpose and motive of investigation and actions taken by Respondent No. 2 in C.R. No. 153/2011 exhibited as Exhibit - I;

(c)

Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue any other interim or ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (a) above;

(d)

Such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require be also granted to the Petitioners.

Petitioner No.1

Petitioner No.2

Petitioner No.3

Advocates for Petitioners

26

VERIFICATION I, Ashok Bahirwani, the Petitioner No.3 above named, do hereby solemnly declare that what is stated in paragraphs 1 to 26 is true to my knowledge and that stated on information and belief and I believe the same to be correct.

Solemnly declared at Mumbai on this day of November, 2011

) ) Petitioner No. 3 Before me

Advocates for the Petitioner

27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Cri. Writ Petition No._____ of 2011

All India Speak Asia Panelist Association & Ors. V/s State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents ...Petitioners

PETITION Date ___ day of November, 2011

Abdi & Co. Advocates for the Petitioners 2nd Floor, Beaumon Chambers, Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001.