Bombay High Court
Lalla @ Radheshyam Sahebrao Dinde vs State Of Mah. Through Its ... on 19 December, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
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
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.
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]
5 wp1150.17
