1 wp1150.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1150 OF 2017
Lalla @ Radheshyam Sahebrao Dinde,
Aged 23 years, Occ. Student, r/o.
New Pusad, Tq. Pusad and
District Yavatmal. .......... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1.State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary
(Special) Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2.Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Pusad, Tq. Pusad, District
Yavatmal.
3.Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Pusad, Tq.
Pusad, District Yavatmal. .......... RESPONDENTS
::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:01:53 :::
2 wp1150.17
___________________________________________________________
Mr.R.B.Dhore, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr.S.S.Doifode, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
____________________________________________________________
CORAM : R. K. DESHPANDE
AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATED : 19th DECEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.K.Deshpande, J) :
1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. In the show cause notice for externment issued on 29.7.2017, there is no reference of in-camera statements said to have been recorded, But, in the order impugned passed on 16.11.2017, such statements are heavily relied upon. This is apparent from the show cause notice. Hence, the said order is impugned.
3. The petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Nitin @ Babloo s/o. Bhagwant Gade .vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-I, Amravati, Criminal Writ Petition ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:01:53 ::: 3 wp1150.17 No.959 of 2015, decided on 28th March, 2016. Para 6 of the said Judgment is re-produced below :
"In so far as the in camera statements of two witnesses are concerned, there is no reference made thereto in the show cause notice. It has been vaguely stated that witnesses were not willing to come forward to depose against the petitioner. However, in the impugned order, there is a specific reference made to two in camera statements that have been relied upon WP959.15.odt 5/5 by the respondent No.1 while passing the order of externment. As the petitioner was not put on notice with regard to the existence of aforesaid in camera statements and the same have been relied upon while ordering his externment, the same would result in vitiating the exercise conducted by the respondent No.1. The material which was not disclosed in the show cause notice could not have been relied upon by the respondent no.1 while passing the order of externment. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench in Pradeep Somnath Gupta (supra).
4. Vide the aforesaid Judgment, this Court has set aside the order of externment on the ground that there was no reference to in- camera statements recorded in the show cause notice. ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:01:53 :::
4 wp1150.17
5. In view of the aforesaid factual position emerging in the present petition, since the present matter is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Nitin @ Babloo s/o. Bhagwant Gade (cited supra), the matter has to be allowed. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed. The order dt.16.11.2017 passed by Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Pusad is hereby quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE [jaiswal] ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:01:53 ::: 5 wp1150.17 ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:01:53 :::