1466.17WP.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1466 OF 2017
Vishnu Pandurang Pathrod
Age : Major, Occ : Labour,
R/o Valmik Nagar, Bhusawal,
Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.
..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Bhusawal Division, Bhusawal,
Dist. Jalgaon.
3. Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
Bhusawal Division,
Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon.
4. The Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik Division, Nashik.
RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.Girish Nagori, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr.D.R. Kale, APP for Respondent/State.
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
MANGESH S. PATIL,JJ.
Reserved on : 28.11.2017 Pronounced on : 11.12.2017 ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:49:24 ::: 1466.17WP.odt 2 JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This Petition is filed with the following prayer :-
"B. To quash and set aside the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhusawal in Proceeding number SR/59/2016 dated 15/11/2016 and confirming by Divisional Commissioner dated 28/04/2017 passed in Externment Appeal No.59/2016 by Respondent No.4 be quashed and set aside."
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the order passed by the Respondent No.2 externing the ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:49:24 ::: 1466.17WP.odt 3 petitioner from two districts i.e. Jalgaon and Dhule is excessive, in as much as, the offences are registered at Bazarpeth Police Station, Bhusawal. He submits that, in the externment proceedings, two offences which are pending against the petitioner, were mentioned. However, the said offences are pending for consideration before the competent Court, and in that offences, the petitioner has not yet been convicted. He further submits that, while conducting the proceedings, there is no compliance of mandate of provisions of Section 57 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 as no proper notice is served on the petitioner. He further submits that, the appellate authority has relied upon the crimes which are pending against the petitioner and wrongly came to the conclusion that, the same will fall within the purview of Sections 16 and 17 of the Maharashtra Police Act. He submits that, ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:49:24 ::: 1466.17WP.odt 4 though the appellate authority partially modified the order passed by Respondent No.2 and made it enforceable restricting to Jalgaon district only, nevertheless, the other legal aspects as agitated by the petitioner, have not been considered by the said authority. He submits that, no reasons are recoded in the impugned order why the petitioner is externed for two years. Learned counsel therefore relying upon the pleadings in the Petition, grounds taken therein and annextures thereto, submits that, the Petition may be allowed.
4. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing for respondent/State, relying upon the reasons assigned by respondent nos.2 and 4 in the impugned orders, submits that, the authorities have adhered to the proper procedure and have passed the appropriate orders. ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:49:24 :::
1466.17WP.odt 5
5. We have carefully considered submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and the learned APP appearing for the respondent - State. With their able assistance, we have carefully perused the grounds taken in the petition, annexures thereto and also the original record maintained by the office of Respondent No.2, and the reasons assigned by respondent nos.2 and 4 in the impugned orders.
6. The appellate authority after considering the rival contentions and adverting to the record has restricted the effect of the order passed by Respondent No.2 within the boundaries of Jalgaon district. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order passed by the Respondent No.2 externing the petitioner from Jalgaon and Dhule ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:49:24 ::: 1466.17WP.odt 6 Districts is excessive, in as much as, the offences are registered at Bazarpeth Police Station, Jalgaon, has been taken care of by the appellate authority.
7. We have also perused the original record maintained in the office of Respondent No.2 and we find that, in camera statements of witness "A" and witness "B" have been recorded, and they have stated that, the witnesses are not willing to come forward to depose or to give complaint against the petitioner due to his fear. In that view of the matter, the mandate of provisions of Section 56 (1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act has been complied with.
8. So far as the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that no reasons are recoded in the impugned order why the petitioner is externed for two ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:49:24 ::: 1466.17WP.odt 7 years, is a matter which is to be taken care of by the concerned authority. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar V/s Dy. Commissioner of Police, The State of Maharashtra 1 while considering the scope of relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act, in para 15, has held as under :-
"15. As regards the last point, it is primarily for the externing authority to decide how best the externment order can be made effective, so as to subserve its real purpose. How long, within the statutory limit of 2 years fixed by Section 58, the order shall operate and to what territories, within the statutory limitations of Section 56 it should extend, are matters which must depend for their decision on the nature of the data which the authority is able to collect in the externment proceedings. There are cases and cases and therefore no 1 (1973)1 SCC 372 ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:49:24 ::: 1466.17WP.odt 8 general formulation can be made that the order of externment must always be restricted to the area to which the illegal activities of the externee extend. A larger area may conceivably have to be comprised with the externment order so as to isolate the externee from his moorings."
9. Therefore, keeping in view the reasons assigned in the orders passed by the authorities and also the fact that the witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner, in our considered view, the order passed by Respondent No.2, which stands modified by Respondent No.4, to the extent of area where the said order should operate, we do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the appellate authority.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, the petition is devoid of any merits, hence the same stands rejected.
::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:49:24 :::
1466.17WP.odt 9
11. Rule stands discharged accordingly.
[MANGESH S. PATIL] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
SAG
::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/12/2017 01:49:24 :::