Gorakh vs The State Of Maharashtra
2013 Latest Caselaw 410 Bom

                                        1                            Cri.W.P. 1178.13.odt


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                     
              CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1178 OF 2013




                                             
     Gorakh S/o Gajabapu Karande 
     Age : 35 years, Occ : Agri., 
     R/o Dehare, Tq. Nagar, 




                                            
     Dist. Ahmednagar. 
                                                                ..PETITIONER
           VERSUS




                                 
     1.    The State of Maharashtra 
           Through Principal Secretary, 
                   
           Home Department, 
           Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.  
                  
     2.    The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, 
           Nagar Division, Ahmednagar. 

     3.    The Sub  Divisional Police Officer, 
      


           Nagar Rural Sub-Division, Ahmednagar, 
           Dist. Ahmednagar.  
   



                                                           ..RESPONDENTS
                                       ...
                   Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. N.V. Gaware





                    APP for Respondents : Mr. V.P. Kadam
                                       ...
                     CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

Dated: December 21, 2013 ...

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By

consent, heard finally.

2 Cri.W.P. 1178.13.odt

2. The petitioner has filed an appeal under section 60 of

the Bombay Police Act, challenging the order of externment, as

passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ahmednagar. Along with

the appeal, the petitioner has also filed an application for stay of

the impugned order. This application for stay has been filed on

31.10.2013. The grievance of the petitioner is that the appellate

authority has still not decided the application for stay.

3. Mr. N.V. Gaware, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that not deciding the application for stay, in effect,

amounts to rejection of the petitioner's application for stay without

considering the merits thereof. I find substance in this contention

advanced by the learned counsel.

4. The procedure adopted by the appellate authority,

namely: of not passing any order at all on the application for stay

can not be called as fair, just or reasonable. From the very nature

of the application, such an application needs to be decided on

merits, expeditiously, particularly if the appeal itself cannot be

heard and disposed of expeditiously.

5. Since the procedure adopted by the appellate

authority in not considering the application for stay on merits and

keeping it pending is unfair and unjust, interference in the matter

by exercising the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is

necessary.

3 Cri.W.P. 1178.13.odt

6. In my opinion, the operation, execution and

implementation of the externment order should be stayed till the

application for stay of the impugned order, as made before the

appellate authority, is decided by the said authority.

7. It is directed accordingly.

8. Save and except as aforesaid, no other order in the

matter.

9. The Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

10. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

Sd/-

( ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. )

***

sga/-