Vishnu Pandurang Pathrod vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9469 Bom

                                                          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

1466.17WP.odt

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

1466.17WP.odt

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,

1466.17WP.odt

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.

1466.17WP.odt

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

1466.17WP.odt

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

1466.17WP.odt

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

1466.17WP.odt

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.

1466.17WP.odt

11. Rule stands discharged accordingly.

              [MANGESH S. PATIL]          [S.S.SHINDE]
                  JUDGE                      JUDGE  
          SAG