Bombay High Court
Alarakkha Moiuddin Quereshi vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 12 June, 2023
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
2023:BHC-AS:15527-DB
Gokhale 1 of 5 1-wp-1214-17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1214 OF 2017
Alarakkha Moiuddin Quereshi ..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents
__________
Smt. Vrishali R. Raje for Petitioner.
Mr. N. B. Patil, APP for State/Respondent No.1.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 12 JUNE 2023
PC :
1. In this matter, Rule is already issued on 29/03/2017.
Vide said order, the interim relief was granted to the Petitioner
thereby staying the operation of the impugned order of the
Externment.
2. Heard Smt. Vrishali Raje, learned counsel for the
Petitioner and Shri. N. B. Patil, learned APP for the State, for final
hearing.
3. The Petitioner has challenged the order dated
21/11/2016 passed by the Respondent No.2 Sub Divisional
::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 16:19:33 :::
2 of 5 1-wp-1214-17
Magistrate, Dahanu Region, Dahanu; externing the Petitioner from
the limits of Palghar district for a period of two years.
4. The Petitioner was served with a show cause notice
U/s.59 of the Maharashtra Police Act dated 03/10/2016
mentioning two offences registered at Talasari police station vide
C.R.No.8 of 2015 and 150 of 2015. The show-cause notice
mentioned that a few people had given statements 'in camera' and
that witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence
against the Petitioner. The Petitioner had responded by filing his
say. After that the impugned externment order was passed. The
said order was challenged by the Petitioner before the Appellate
Authority by filing Appeal U/s.60 of the said Act. The said Appeal
was dismissed vide order dated 20/02/2017.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that,
though, the show-cause notice mentions that certain people had
given their statements 'in camera', but absolutely no particulars
regarding those statements are given in the show-cause notice. The
Externment Authority recorded it's subjective satisfaction that the
::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 16:19:33 :::
3 of 5 1-wp-1214-17
activities of the Petitioner were causing alarm in general public
and, therefore, nobody was coming forward to give evidence
against him. The Externment Authority had relied on the report
submitted before it by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Dahanu
after enquiry.
6. Learned APP submitted that, there was sufficient
material in the enquiry report on which the Externing Authority
had based its subjective satisfaction.
7. I have considered these submissions. The show-cause
notice does not give basic minimum particulars about the
statements recorded 'in camera'. Thus, the Petitioner is deprived of
making proper representation to defend himself against the
proposed externment proceeding.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the order
passed by a single Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Iqbal
Hussain Abid Hussain Qureshi Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1
She particularly relied on paragraph-7 of the said Judgment which
reads thus:
1 Cri. W.P.No.1450 of 1998 decided on 20.11.1998.
::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 16:19:33 :::
4 of 5 1-wp-1214-17
7. I will take the last ground first namely that in so
far as in camera statement of witness "B" is concerned
that no particulars of the place have been given and in
the light of that petitioner was denied proper
opportunity to show cause. Statement of witness "B"
only shows that incident took place on 20 th November,
1997 at 11.25p.m. In Abdul Kadir Razzaque Beg v.
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nasik and others, 1991
Mah. L. J. 474 = 1991(1) Bom.C.R. 589 = 1991(2)
Mah. L.R. 671 the Division Bench of this Court has
observed that the time, the date, the place and the
nature of incident should be circumscribed within such
reasonable limits in order to enable the petitioner to
meet the allegations against him. Whereas the in
camera statement of witness "A" apart from showing
the date and time shows also the place. No such
particulars are set out in so far as in camera statement
of witness "B" is concerned. The petitioner therefore
was denied a reasonable opportunity of meeting the
said ground. Once it is held that the petitioner was
denied reasonable opportunity, the said ground could
not have been the basis of formation of opinion. It is
also clear that when the order of externment is based
on the several grounds and one of the grounds cannot
be sustained, the Court cannot decide which ground
weighs with the Externing Authority and it cannot
substitute the decision over that of the Externing
Authority. The order on that count is liable to be
quashed and set aside."
9. The observations and the ratio of this order is squarely
applicable to the present case. Therefore, the petition deserves to
be allowed.
10. Hence, the following order:
::: Uploaded on - 13/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 16:19:33 :::
5 of 5 1-wp-1214-17
ORDER
i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause
(A) which reads thus:
"A) This Hon'ble court be pleased to quash and
set aside the order dated 21/11/2016 passed by
the Respondent No.2 in the externment
proceedings bearing no. DP/MAG/P.E./SR-02/16."
ii) The Petition is disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
