Manoj S/O. Uttamrao Patil vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3821 Bom

                                                    1                                    jg.cri.w.p.186.17.odt


                 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        : NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

                    CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 186 OF 2017

Manoj S/o. Uttamrao Patil
Age - 25 years, Occ. - Farmer, 
R/o. Sawad, Tal. Arvi, 
Distt. Wardha.                                                                                  ... Petitioner

             VERSUS

(1) State of Maharashtra,
      Through Secretary, 
      Department of Home, 
      Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road, 
      Mumbai 400032. 

(2) Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
      Office of the Superintendant of Police, 
      District Wardha. 

(3) Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
      Tah. Arvi, Dist. Wardha. 

(4) Police Station Officer,
      Police Station Kharangana, 
      Tah. Arvi, Dist. Wardha.                                                             ... Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D. U. Thakare, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri M. K. Pathan, APP for the State/respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  CORAM :  PRASANNA  B. VARALE and
                                                                 M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.

DATE : 30/06/2017.

Judgment (Per : M.G. Giratkar, J)

Heard Shri Thakare, learned counsel for the petitioner and

2 jg.cri.w.p.186.17.odt

Shri Pathan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/

respondents.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the

impugned order dated 6-9-2016 passed by the respondent no. 2 by

which the petitioner is externed from Wardha District for a period of

one year. It is submitted by the petitioner that the respondent no. 2

without applying mind issued the impugned order, therefore, impugned

order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. Respondents have filed reply and submitted that some of

the companions of the petitioner had challenged the impugned order in

Writ Petition Nos. 779/2016 and 784/2016 and those petitions are

allowed by this Court and at last it is submitted that this Court may pass

appropriate order in that regard insofar as present petition is concerned.

5. Shri Thakare, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed

out us common order passed by this Court on 21-12-2016 in Writ

Petition No. 23/2016 and other writ petitions. From perusal of the

impugned order, it appears that the petitioner was one of the member of

gang. Various offences under Indian Penal Code and Schedule Castes

3 jg.cri.w.p.186.17.odt

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are registered

against the petitioner and others. One of the member of the gang

namely, Ganesh Ramlakhansingh Bais filed Criminal Writ Petition

No. 779/2016. Said writ petition came to be decided with other writ

petitions by this Court and it is held that impugned order was passed

without applying any mind and, therefore, quashed and set aside the

same. In view of the judgment cited above, the impugned order is liable

to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, we allow the petition in terms

of prayer clause (a).

                  JUDGE                                           JUDGE



wasnik