Premlal S/O Asharfilal Yadav vs Sub Divisional Magistrate, ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4013 Bom

                                                        1                         crwp343.16.odt

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR




                                                                                        
                       CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.343/2016




                                                                
            Premlal s/o Asharfilal Yadav,
            aged 51 years, Occ. Busienss, 
            r/o Chorbahuli, Tq. Ramtek,
            Dist. Nagpur.                                        .....PETITIONER




                                                               
                                   ...V E R S U S...

     1.     Sub Divisional Magistrate,




                                                
            Ramtek, Tq. Ramtek, Dist. Nagpur.

     2.
                             
            State of Maharashtra through
            Secretary (Home Department),
            Mantralaya, Mumbai.                                  ...RESPONDENTS
                            
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Mr. R. K. Tiwari, Advocate for petitioner.
     Mr. T. A. Mirza, A.P.P. for respondents-State.
     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      
   



                     CORAM:-  B. R. GAVAI &    V. M. DESHPAND E, JJ.

DATED :-

JULY 20 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : B. R. GAVAI, J.)

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent

of the parties.

2. The petitioner, by the present petition, has approached

this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by respondent no.1

thereby externing him from the area of Nagpur (Rural) and Nagpur

(City) for a period of two years from the date of order.

2 crwp343.16.odt

3. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in the

month of August, 2015 calling upon him as to why he should not be

externed. In pursuance to this notice, the petitioner remained

present on 29.10.2015 and submitted his reply.

4. Perusal of the reply would reveal that though the action

was proposed on the basis of the 14 offences, the petitioner out of

those offence, he was already acquitted in 8 offences. Perusal of the

record reveals that he has also placed on record the judgment of the

Court acquitting him.

5. However, perusal of the impugned order shows that the

impugned order states that the petitioner has been acquitted only in

3 offence and that even in that case, the police authorities had not

filed any appeal. The learned authority further observed that despite

that the petitioner deserves to be externed.

6. It would thus be seen that the order is passed without

application of mind. Though the petitioner was been acquitted in 8

cases, the authority considered that he is acquitted in only 3 cases.

Apart from that we find that the petition deserves to be allowed on

3 crwp343.16.odt

other ground also. There is no prima facie nexus between the

activities alleged and the impugned order. The last incident on

which the action is taken is dated 03.11.2014. The show cause

notice is issued 9 months thereafter in the month of August, 2015

and the impugned order is passed about 7 months from the date on

which the show cause notice was issued.

7. In that view of the matter, we find that the petition

deserves to be allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer

clause (a) of the petition.

                          (V. M. Deshpande)                       (B. R. Gavai)
   



     kahale







                                              4                       crwp343.16.odt

                                         CERTIFICATE

I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and

correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order.

Uploaded by: Y. A. Kahale. Uploaded On:22.07.2016