Bombay High Court
Ramesh Ganesh Londhe vs The Divisional Commissioner, ... on 20 August, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
Judgment 1 wp410.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 410/2021
Ramesh Ganesh Londhe,
Aged 29 years, Occ. Private
R/o. Pusad, Tq. Pusad,
Dist. Yavatmal
.... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1] The Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati
2] The Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Pusad, Tq. Pusad & Dist. Yavatmal
3] The Pusad City Police Station,
through its Police Sub-Inspector,
Pusad, Tq. Pusad, District Yavatmal
.... RESPONDENT(S)
*************************************************************************
Shri R.D. Dhande, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for the respondents/State
*************************************************************************
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
AUGUST 20, 2021
JUDGMENT : (PER:- AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)
1] RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
ANSARI
Judgment 2 wp410.21.odt
2] By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner - externee calls in question the legality and validity of
the order dated 14/01/2021 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pusad in
Case No. 17/2019 and the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati dated 03/05/2021 passed in Appeal No. 14/2021 thereby externing
the petitioner for period of one year from the limits of Yavatmal District in
exercise of power under Section 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act (for
short "the said Act").
3] The Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 27/12/2019 issued show cause
notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action under Section
56(1)(b) of the said Act should not be initiated against the petitioner. The Sub-
Divisional Magistrate took into consideration four cases registered against the
petitioner, details of which are as under :-
Sr. Police Station Crime No. Section Status
No.
1 Pusad City 214 of 2015 323, 324, 294, Pending
336, 337, 143,
147, 148, 149,
506 of IPC r/w
3,4/25 of the
Arms Act and
3(1)(11) of the
SC ST Act.
2 Pusad City 215 of 2015 324, 504, 506 Acquitted
and 34 of the IPC
ANSARI
Judgment 3 wp410.21.odt
3 Pusad City 140 of 2017 336, 143, 147 of Pending
the IPC
4 Bittergaon 75 of 2019 143, 147, 148, Pending
324, 504 and
506 of the IPC
r/w 135 MPA
4] According to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the movements and
acts of the petitioner are causing alarm, danger and harm to the person and the
property and hence he passed order dated 14/01/2021 externing the petitioner
for period of one year. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has recorded subjective
satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is
engaged in commission of offence involving force and violence falling within
Chapters XII, XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner, being
aggrieved by the order dated 14/01/2021, filed Appeal No. 14/2021 before the
Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. The Divisional
Commissioner, after hearing the petitioner, confirmed the order passed by the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate holding that the petitioner is engaged in criminal
cases, violating peace and creating threats to the public.
5] The petitioner has therefore challenged the order dated
03/05/2021 by way of filing the present petition. This Court on 10/06/2021
issued notices to the respondents. The respondent no. 2, in pursuance of the
ANSARI
Judgment 4 wp410.21.odt
notice issued by this Court, has filed reply sworn by Sudhakar Amarsingh
Rathod, working as Naib Tahsildar, SDO Office, Pusad.
6] We have heard Shri R. D. Dhande, learned advocate for the
petitioner and Shri T.A. Mirza, learned APP for the respondents / State.
7] Learned advocate for the petitioner raised several contentions
challenging the impugned order but we are inclined to quash the order of
externment only on the ground of gross and unexplained delay on the part of
the Externing Authority in passing the final order under Section 56(1)(b) of
the said Act. The petitioner has raised ground (b) contending delay in passing
the impugned order by the Externing Authority. It is submitted that the show
cause notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is dated 27/12/2019 but
the impugned order was passed on 14/01/2021 i.e. after more than a year from
the said notice. It is submitted that the fact that the respondent no. 2 took
more than a year to decide the matter after issuance of the show cause notice
demonstrates that the order directing externment of the petitioner has no
nexus with the object to be achieved by the order of externment. The
respondent no. 2 has submitted explanation to the delay in passing the order of
externment. The respondent no. 2, in para no. 4.5 of its reply, has explained
the delay in passing the order of externment stating that the matter was posted
ANSARI
Judgment 5 wp410.21.odt
for order in the month of January, 2020 and since March, 2020 there is
pandemic situation in the entire State of Maharashtra and the respondent no. 2
being the Nodal Officer was busy in discharging the duties cast under the
Disaster Management Act and therefore the delay in passing the order is not
sufficient to vitiate the proceedings or set aside the order.
8] We have carefully considered the impugned orders passed by the
Externing Authority and the Appellate Authority and the reply filed by the
respondent no. 2. It is well settled that mere delay in passing the order of
externment is by itself not a ground to vitiate the proceedings of externment if
the Externing Authority sufficiently explains the delay in passing the order of
externment. The absence of explanation in passing the order of externment
vitiates the externment proceedings. In the facts of the present case, it is
undisputed that the Externing Authority had posted the matter for passing of
the order in January, 2020 but the final order is passed only on 14/01/2021 i.e.
after period of more than one year. In the facts of the present case, we do not
find that the explanation provided by the respondent no. 2 is sufficient to
explain the delay caused in passing the order of externment. The situation of
the pandemic arose only in the month of March, 2020. Taking into
consideration the nature of proceedings of externment affecting the liberty of
the externee, it was expected from the Externing Authority to pass appropriate
ANSARI
Judgment 6 wp410.21.odt
orders as expeditiously as possible. We are therefore satisfied that the
explanation provided in the reply by the Externing Authority for the delay in
passing the order of externment has not been explained properly. Therefore,
the externment proceedings against the petitioner snaps the live link between
the object of externing the petitioner and the nefarious activities complained
of.
9] Hence, the following order:-
The order dated 14/01/2021 (Annexure 'B') passed by the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Pusad in Case No. 17/2019 and the order
dated 03/05/2021 (Annexure 'E') passed by the Divisional
Commissioner, Amravati in Appeal No. 14/2021 are quashed and
set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending application(s),
if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
ANSARI
