Bombay High Court
Abdul Akram S/O. Abdul Ahad Deshmukh vs Deputy Commissioner Of Police Zone 1 ... on 9 October, 2024
Author: G. A. Sanap
Bench: G. A. Sanap
2024:BHC-NAG:11549
1 CRIWP214.24 (J).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 214 OF 2024
PETITIONER : Abdul Akram S/o Abdul Ahad Deshmukh,
Aged about 34 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Navi Basti, Badnera, Amravati,
Tah. & Dist. Amravati.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1] Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Zone-1, Amravati,
Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
2] The Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Shreya Bhagat, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Bissa, A.P.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J.
DATED : OCTOBER 09, 2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
the consent of the learned advocates for the parties.
2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order
dated 07.02.2024, passed by the respondent no.2- Divisional
Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, confirming the order
2 CRIWP214.24 (J).odt
dated 09.11.2022 passed by respondent no.1 - Dy. Commissioner of
Police, Zone-I, Amravati, whereby the petitioner has been externed
from Amravati district for a period of two years.
3. The proceeding for externment of the petitioner was
initiated by respondent no.1 - Dy. Commissioner of Police, Amravati.
He issued a notice to the petitioner on 17.09.2022 to show cause as to
why he shall not be externed from Amravati district. The notice was
replied. The petitioner placed on record all the relevant facts including
the fact that earlier, on the same set of facts, the externment proceeding
was initiated and in the said proceeding, the Appellate Authority i.e.
respondent no.2, had set aside the order of externment of the petitioner
passed by respondent no.1.
4. The respondent no.1 has relied upon the following crimes for
passing the impugned order -
Sr Police Stn. Crime No. Offences Status
1. Badnera 287/2018 U/ss 307, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, Pending before
341, 336, 337, 427 of IPC ; and Court
U/s 3 Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act
2. Badnera 597/2018 294, 323, 506(2), 34 IPC ---"---
3. Badnera 78/2019 324, 294, 506(2), 134 of IPC ---"---
3 CRIWP214.24 (J).odt
Preventive Action
S.No. Police Station Istegasha No. Under Sections Status
1. Badnera 321/2018 107, 116(3) of Cr.P.C.
dated 17.07.2017
5. Respondent no.2 while deciding the appeal filed against
the impugned order dated 09.11.2022, did not agree with the
submissions advanced by the petitioner and dismissed the appeal.
6. Learned advocate for the petitioner took me through the
record and proceedings. It is pointed out that on the same set of facts,
three notices had been issued to the petitioner for his externment from
the entire Amravati district. The first notice was issued on 20.03.2019.
The same crimes, as mentioned in the chart, had been relied upon while
issuing the said notice. The order of externment was passed against the
petitioner by respondent no.1 on 30.05.2019. The said order was
challenged by filing an appeal. Respondent no.2, by order dated
30.05.2019, set aside the order passed by respondent no.1. Learned
advocate submitted that all these facts had been brought to the notice of
respondent no.1, but he did not consider the same and mechanically
passed the impugned order of extetnment. Learned advocate further
submitted that the respondent no.2 has also not bothered to consider all
4 CRIWP214.24 (J).odt
these aspects while deciding the appeal. Learned advocate submitted
that the order of externment of the petitioner passed by respondent no.1
on 09.11.2022, reflects total non-application of mind. Learned
advocate submitted that similarly, the order passed by the respondent
no.2 in appeal also does not reflect the application of mind. It is
submitted that the stale crimes have been relied upon to pass the
impugned order. It is further submitted that in the factual situation, the
externment of the petitioner for a period of two years, that too from the
entire Amravati district, is against the provisions of law.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the
order passed by respondent no.1 was on the basis of his subjective
satisfaction. Learned APP submitted that respondent no.2, on the basis
of the available material and on re-appreciation of the same, recorded a
finding that the order of externment was fully justified. Learned APP,
however, pointed out that he has not specifically dealt with all the
aspects, which have now been pointed out with regard to the
externment proceeding initiated in the year 2019 on the same set of
facts and the crimes.
5 CRIWP214.24 (J).odt
8. I have gone through the record and proceedings. On
going through the record, I am constrained to observe that respondent
no.1 as well as respondent no.2, in blatant violation of the provisions of
law, curtained the fundamental right of the petitioner. It is to be noted
that the order passed by respondent no.1 and confirmed by respondent
no.2 shows total non-application of mind to the materials brought on
record. It is evident from the record that the first notice, on the same
set of crimes, for externment was issued to the petitioner on
20.03.2019. The externment order was passed by the then Dy.
Commissioner of Police on 28.03.2019. The said order was set aside by
the Appellate Authority by order dated 30.05.2019. It is evident that
after this order, passed by respondent no.2-Appellate Authority, the
respondent no.1 -Dy.C.P., Amravati issued second show cause notice on
the same set of facts and relying upon same crimes, on 18.08.2022. It
was also replied. It is evident that this notice was conveniently dropped.
Respondent no.1 again on the basis of the same crimes, issued third
notice on 17.09.2022 to the petitioner. Respondent no.1 conducted an
inquiry and recorded his subjective satisfaction to direct externment of
the petitioner. Respondent no.2, in appeal, did not bother to look into
all these facts afresh. Respondent no.2 in exercise of the appellate
6 CRIWP214.24 (J).odt
jurisdiction, was required to appreciate the entire material and come to
its own conclusion. It is evident that both the authorities have acted
mechanically. No reasons have been recorded in the impugned orders
necessitating the externment of the petitioner on the basis of stale
crimes, which had already been relied upon for passing the externment
order against the petitioner in 2019. In my view, on this ground alone
the impugned orders cannot be sustained.
9. It is further seen that the order of externment suffers from
vires of excessiveness. No reasons have been recorded by respondent
no.1 as well as by respondent no.2 to warrant the petitioner's
externment for two years and that too from the entire Amravati district.
In my view, there is no material at all on record to sustain the subjective
satisfaction recorded by respondent no.1. The order, therefore, cannot
be sustained.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Writ Petition is allowed.
i] The order dated 07.02.2024 passed by respondent no.2 -
Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, confirming the
order dated 09.11.2022 passed by respondent no.1, is quashed and set
aside.
7 CRIWP214.24 (J).odt
ii] Similarly, the order dated 09.11.2022 passed by respondent
no.2 - Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zole No.1, Amravati, externing
the petitioner from entire Amravati district, is also quashed and set
aside.
11. Rule is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of in
the aforesaid terms.
( G. A. SANAP, J. )
Diwale
Signed by: DIWALE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 15/10/2024 20:15:37
