Bombay High Court
Bhujang Ramchandra Bajad vs The Divisional Commissioner ... on 16 March, 2021
Bench: Z.A. Haq, Amit B. Borkar
1 6-J-WP-237-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 237 OF 2021
Bhujang Ramchandra Bajad,
Aged : 43 years, Occu : Labour,
R/o Kawatha Sopinath,
Tq. Murtijapur, District : Akola. ... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati,
Tq. and District : Amravati.
2. Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Tq. Murtizapur, Distt-Akola.
3. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Mana Tq. Murtizapur,
District - Akola. ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S. J. Kadu, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri T. A. Mirza, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
Nos.1 to 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: Z.A. HAQ & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
DATED : 16/03/2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity
and legality of order dated 03/02/2021 passed by the respondent
No.1 thereby confirming the order passed by the respondent No.2
2 6-J-WP-237-21.odt
in exercise of powers under Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the
Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (for short "the Act of 1951").
4. The proposal was sent to the respondent No.2 for
externment of the petitioner for a period of two years based on the
offences registered against the petitioner which are stated in the
chart. The said chart reads as under :-
Sr. Police Station Crime No. Section Status
No.
1. Mana 3020/2014 294, 506 of IPC Pending in court
2. Mana 26/2015 324, 504 of IPC Pending in court
3. Mana 163/2019 324, 325, 427, Pending in court
504, 34 of IPC
4. Mana 244/2019 504, 506 of IPC Pending in court
Preventive Action :-
Sr. Police Station Ist No. Section Dated
No.
1. Mana 194/2015 107, 116(3) of CRPC 18/05/2015
2. Mana 11/2019 107, 116(3) of CRPC 30/09/2019
5. Final report was sent to the respondent No.2 -
Sub-Divisional Officer after holding preliminary enquiry wherein it
is stated that the petitioner is terrorizing citizens in the vicinity of
his residents.
6. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on
01/09/2020 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why action
under Sections 56 and 59(1) of the Act of 1951 should not be
3 6-J-WP-237-21.odt
taken against the petitioner for a period of two years and it was
directed that the petitioner has filed his reply to the said show
cause notice within a period of two weeks. The petitioner in
pursuance of the said show cause notice, filed his reply stating
that he has been falsely implicated and he has not committed
offences as alleged against him. He, therefore, prayed that since
the responsibility of his family is on the petitioner, the show cause
notice be dropped.
7. The respondent No.2 after taking into
consideration reply filed by the petitioner passed an order
externing the petitioner from area of Akola, Washim and Amravati
Districts for a period of six months.
8 The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated
29/12/2020 passed by the respondent No.2 filed externment
Appeal No.02/MPA.1951/U/s 60/Ext/G.B..-7/2021/Akola before
the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 by order dated
04/01/2021 granted stay to the order of externment which was in
force till the dismissal of the appeal. The respondent No.1 by the
impugned order dated 03/02/2021 confirmed the order of the
respondent No.2 by holding that there are four offences registered
against the petitioner and the cases are pending in the Court. It is
also observed that the reasonable opportunity of hearing was
granted to the petitioner before passing of the order.
4 6-J-WP-237-21.odt
9. The petitioner has, therefore, challenged the order
of dismissal of appeal passed by the respondent No.1 by way of
present petition.
10. Shri S. J. Kadu, learned Advocate for the petitioner
invited our attention to the material produced before the
respondent No.2 by way of reply, wherein the petitioner pointed
out to the respondent No.2 that insofar as the Crime bearing
No.3020/2014 registered under Sections 294 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code is concerned, the petitioner was acquitted in
the said offence by judgment and order dated 12/12/2014. He
further submitted that as per the chart submitted by the
respondent No.2, the last offence registered against the petitioner
was of the year 2019 and the show cause notice issued to the
petitioner is of 22/08/2020. Therefore, there is no live link
between the offence committed by the petitioner and the show
cause notice issued in the petition.
11. Shri Mirza, learned APP submitted that the offences
alleged against the petitioner are serious in nature and therefore,
the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have rightly taken action of
externment against the petitioner for a period of six months.
12. We have carefully considered the orders passed by
the respondent No.1 and 2. On careful consideration of the
5 6-J-WP-237-21.odt
impugned orders, we are satisfied that insofar as the Crime
No.3020/2014 registered under Sections 294 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code is concerned, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have
not taken into consideration the material produced by the
petitioner that the petitioner was acquitted for the offences
punishable under Sections 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code
in Crime No.3020/2014. It, therefore, shows that the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 have not taken into consideration the relevant
material while passing the order of externment.
13. Apart from the above ground, from the chart which
is on record it appears that the last offence registered against the
petitioner is of date 23/08/2019. The proposal for initiating action
against the petitioner for externment is dated 22/08/2020. Taking
into consideration time gap between the last offence registered
against the petitioner and the date of initiation of proposal against
the petitioner, we are satisfied that there is no live link between
the offence committed by the petitioner and the proposal for
initiating action of externment against the petitioner.
14. For the reasons stated above, we are satisfied that
the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 were not justified in
passing of the order of externment against the petitioner as both
the authorities have failed to take into consideration the relevant
material and there was no live link between the offence registered
6 6-J-WP-237-21.odt
against the petitioner and the proposal for initiating action of
externment against the petitioner. We are satisfied that the
impugned orders passed against the petitioner suffer from error of
law and need to be quashed and set aside.
15. We, therefore, pass the following order :-
i] The impugned order dated 04/01/2021 passed
by the respondent No.1 in Appeal
No.02/MPA.1951/U/s 60/Ext/G.B..-7/2021/Akola
and also order dated 29/12/2020 passed by the
respondent No.2 in externment proceedings under
Mumbai Police Act are quashed and set aside.
ii] Show cause notice issued by the respondent
No.2 annexed at Annexure-D to the petition is also
quashed and set aside.
16. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
JUDGE JUDGE
Choulwar
