Sayyed Jafar Sayyed Nasir vs The Divisional Commissioner ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7526 Bom

                                 1                         wp703.17.odt




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR



                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.703 OF 2017



  Sayyed Jafar Sayyed Nasir,
  Aged about 27 years, Occ.
  Labour, r/o.Wadali, Near 
  Masjid, Amravati, Tq. and 
  Distt. Amravati.                        ..........      PETITIONER


      // VERSUS //


  1.The Divisional Commissioner,
     Amravati, Tq. and Distt.
     Amravati.
  2.Deputy Commissioner of Police,
     (Zone I), Police Commissionerate,
     Amravati City, Amravati (MS).        ..........     RESPONDENTS


  ____________________________________________________________  
                  Mr.J.B.Kasat, Advocate for the Petitioner.
                  Mr.S.S.Doifode, A.P.P. for the Respondents.
  ____________________________________________________________



::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017                   ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 01:27:44 :::
                                2                                wp703.17.odt

                                    CORAM     :  SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK
                                                       AND
                                                       M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.

DATE : 25.9.2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J) :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at

the stage of admission with the consent of the learned Counsel for

the parties.

By this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order

of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati City, Amravati

dt.23.6.2016 externing the petitioner from Amravati City and

Amravati Rural area for a period of two years.

Mr.J.B.Kasat, the learned Counsel for the petitioner inter

alia submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to

be set aside, as in the notice served on the petitioner u/s.59 of the

Maharashtra Police Act, the Deputy Commissioner of Police has not

mentioned about the in-camera statements of the two witnesses. It is

submitted that though a passing reference is made in the notice

u/s.59 that the in-camera statements of two witnesses were recorded

by giving assurance to them in regard to the non-disclosure of their

identity, what was said by these witnesses is not mentioned in the

3 wp703.17.odt

show cause notice. It is submitted that the petitioner could not

effectively give the reply to the show cause notice in the absence of

any material about the in-camera statements of the two witnesses. It

is stated that though the statements of witnesses are not mentioned

in the show cause notice, they are relied on by the Deputy

Commissioner of Police, while passing the order externing the

petitioner from Amravati City and rural areas. It is submitted that

since the Authority has committed a serious flaw while deciding the

proposal for the externment of the petitioner, the impugned order is

liable to be set aside.

Mr.S.S.Doifode, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the respondents has supported the order of the Deputy

Commissioner of Police. It is submitted that the acts of the petitioner

are causing alarm and danger to the persons residing in the locality.

It is submitted that the in-camera statements of two persons from the

locality were recorded and since it appears from the said statements

that witnesses were not ready to come forward to tender evidence

against the petitioner, the impugned order is passed by considering

the statements. It is, however, fairly admitted that in the show cause

notice served on the petitioner, there is no specific mention about the

in-camera statements made by the witnesses.

4 wp703.17.odt

In the circumstances of the case, it would be necessary to

quash and set aside the impugned order. If the Deputy Commissioner

of Police wanted to rely on the in-camera statements of the witnesses

for externing the petitioner, it was necessary for him to mention in

the show cause notice, what was stated by the witnesses when their

in-camera statements were recorded. It is rightly submitted on

behalf of the petitioner that, in the absence of any mention about the

in-camera statements made by the witnesses in the show cause

notice, the right of the petitioner to give an effective reply stood

hampered. As the procedure was not followed by the Deputy

Commissioner of Police while deciding the proposal for the

externment of the petitioner, the impugned order is liable to be set

aside.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is

allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule is made

absolute in the aforesaid terms.

                                    JUDGE                          JUDGE
   

  [jaiswal]




                                5               wp703.17.odt