Sheikh Salim Sheikh Rahhulha And ... vs The Divisional Commissioner, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 14279 Bom

                                                     1                             crwp591.21.odt

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

                     CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 591/2021

 1. Sheikh Salim Sheikh Rahhulha,
    aged 45 years, Occ. Business.

 2. Sheikh Yusuf Sheikh Musa,
    aged about 46 years, Occ. Butcher,
    r/o Wadegaon, Tq. Balapur,
    dist. Akola.                                              .....PETITIONERS
                     ...V E R S U S...

 1. The Divisional Commissioner,
    Amravati District Amravati.

 2. Police Superintendent, Akola.

 3. Police Inspector, Police Station,
      Balapur, Dist. Akola.                                   ...RESPONDENTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mr. S. V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for petitioners.
 Mr. T. A. Mirza, A.P.P. for respondents.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE AND
                                               AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATE:- OCTOBER 1, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: Amit B. Borkar, J.)

1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, petitioners are challenging order dated

09.06.2021 passed by respondent no.1 in Appeal No.28/MPA, 1951 and

order of externment dated 22.03.2021 passed by respondent no.2.

2. Show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioners

stating that for the offence stated in the said notice why action under

2 crwp591.21.odt

Section 55 of the Bombay Police Act should not be taken against the

petitioners. The said notice was issued under Section 59 (1) of the

Maharashtra Police Act.

3. The petitioner filed reply to the said notice dated 22.03.2021

and denied the contention in the said notice. It is stated that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the offence and no way

concerned with the same. It is stated that due to false implication of the

petitioners, notice may be withdrawn.

4. Respondent no.2, after considering the reply and after

perusing material on record, by order dated 22.03.2021, externed the

petitioners and one other for a period of two years from Akola District.

The petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 22.03.2021, filed

appeal before respondent no.1. Respondent no.1, by impugned order

has dismissed the appeal of petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, filed

the present petition.

5. This Court issued notice to respondents. Respondent no.1 on

20.08.2021 filed reply affirmed by one Mr. G.Sreedhar working as

Superintendent of Police. It is stated in paragraph 8 of reply that

serious offence under Sections 379, 411 and 34 of the Indian Penal

3 crwp591.21.odt

Code are registered against the petitioners and gang at Police Station,

Balapur, which are all pending in the Court.

6. We have heard Mr. Sirpurkar, learned counsel for

petitioners. He submitted that the externing authority has taken action

only against the petitioners and has not taken any action against

remaining gang members and therefore order of externment is illegal.

7. We have carefully considered the order passed by

respondent no.2, which is confirmed by respondent no.1. On perusal of

order passed by respondent no.2, it is clear that the externing authority

has externed all three members of the gang and therefore the

submission made on behalf of the petitioners is of no substance.

8. An overall perusal of the matter, in view of five serious

offences being registered against the petitioners and gang, we find no

illegality in the impugned order passed by respondent no.2 and

confirmed by respondent no.1. There is no merit in the petition. The

writ petition is therefore dismissed.

Rule is discharged.

                     JUDGE                                JUDGE

 kahale