Sheikh Nafiz @ Babya S/O Sheikh ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1270 Bom

                                                        1                       crwp683.16.odt

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

                    CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.683/2016

      Sheikh Nafiz @ babya s/o Sheikh Hafiz,
      age 29 years, Occ. Labour, permanent
      resident of Indira Nagar, Buldhana,
      Dist. Buldhana, presently residing at
      c/o Hardayalsingh, at Post Ambasi,
      Tq. Patur, Dist. Akola (P.S. Patur)                         .....PETITIONER

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

 1. State of Maharashtra, through
    Sub Divisional Magistrate, Buldhana.

 2. Superintendent of Police, Buldhana,
    Dist. Buldhana.

 3. Police Station Officer, Buldhana,
      (City), Buldhana.                                           ...RESPONDENTS
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri C. G. Barapatre, Advocate for petitioner.
 Shri S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for respondents
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   CORAM:-      B. P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
                                                  V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATED :- MARCH 29, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : B. P. Dharmadhikari, J.)

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

of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. A proposal for externment was moved on 28.08.2015. On

that basis, a show cause notice was issued on 19.01.2016 and the

impugned order of externment has been passed on 21.07.2016. The

externment has been ordered out of city and rural limits of Buldana

District for one year. Shri Barapatre, the learned counsel for the

2 crwp683.16.odt

petitioner states that during the pendency of this proceeding, the

petitioner has been acquitted from 2 more crimes No.16/14 and

118/2015. He states that all the offences are relating to only one Police

Station.

3. The learned A.P.P., relying upon the reply affidavit states

that there are about 11 crimes, which are looked into and thereafter a

specific order has been passed. There is no perversity.

4. The acquittal of the petitioner from Crime Nos.16/2014 and

118/2015 does not find place in the impugned order. Similarly, while

ordering his externment out of the entire Buldana district, rationale

behind it is absent as all offences are registered only in one police

station.

5. The impugned order puts the petitioner out of Buldana

District for a period of one year. The proposal was moved on

28.08.2015. The proceedings remained pending for about 11 months

and the impugned order has been passed on 21.07.2016. As already

noted supra, about 6 months after the proposal, show cause notice came

to be issued and six months thereafter the impugned order has been

passed. Thus, live link is missing in the matter.

6. In the circumstances, we quash and set aside the order

dated 21.07.2016. The petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

(V. M. Deshpande, J.) (B. P. Dharmadhikari, J.) kahale