Bombay High Court
Shankar Laxman Khandare vs State Of Mah. Thr. Its Secretary ... on 8 March, 2023
Bench: Vinay Joshi, Bharat Pandurang Deshpande
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 849 OF 2022
Shankar Laxman Khandare, aged about
52 yars, Occ. Labourer, R/o Uprai, Tq.
Daryapur, District Amravati.
... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra, through its
Secretary, Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Police Station Officer, Police Station,
Khallar, Tah. Daryapur, District
Amravati.
3. Deputy Collector and Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Daryapur, District
Amravati.
... RESPONDENTS
_____________________________________________________________
Shri R.J. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Thakre, A.P.P. for the respondent/State.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 08/03/2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Vinay Joshi, J.)
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.
2. The petitioner has been externed for the period of one year
from the entire Amravati District vide order dated 14.06.2022 by
respondent no.3 Deputy Collector and Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Daryapur, District Amravati. The order has been passed in terms of
Section 56(1)(a)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (for short 'the
Act).
3. The challenge is principally on the ground that the entire
action has been based on six offences registered against the petitioner
under the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949 ('the Act
of 1949') and therefore, it does not meet the requisite criteria as
specified under Section 56 (1)(a)(b) of the Act. In support of said
contention, the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in case of
Umar Mohamed Malbari vs. K.P. Gaikwad, Dy. Commissioner of Police
and Anr. 2000 ALL MR (Cri.) 578.
4. The respondent/State resisted the petition by filing
affidavit-in-reply. It has been stated that the petitioner is habitual
offender against whom six offences were registered under Section
65(e) of the Act of 1949. The petitioner used to indulge into illicit
liquor business. Despite prohibitory action, the petitioner continued his
activity and therefore, the action is sustainable in the eyes of law.
5. The petitioner was served with the notice under Section 59
of the Act, which he replied. The impugned order bears crime chart
containing six offences registered against the petitioner under Section
65(e) of the Act of 1949 ranging from the year 2013 to 2021. All
offences were shown to be subjudice. Besides that, prohibitory actions
was taken against the petitioner however they were disposed of.
6. Perusal of the impugned order makes it abdunt clear that
the action is totally based on the offences registered under the Act of
1949. This Court in above referred case, took a view that externment
order cannot be based solely on the ground of prosecution under the
Prohibition Act. The State is unable to point out any other ground to
substantiate the order under challenge. Since the action is totally based
on the offences registered under the Act of 1949, it is unsustainable in
the eyes of law.
7. In view of above, writ petition is allowed. The order dated
14.06.2022 passed by the respondent no.3 Deputy Collector and Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Daryapur, District Amravati is hereby quashed
and set aside.
8. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
(BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.)
Trupti
TRUPTI SANTOSHJI AGRAWAL
10.03.2023 17:03
