[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Milind Alias Pintu Madhukarrao ... vs Divisional Commissioner Nagpur ... on 2 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:13425
Judgment wp974.25
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 974/2025.
Milind @ Pintu s/o Madhukarrao Deshmukh,
Aged about 51 years, Occupation - Private,
resident of Near School No.1, Katol,
Tahsil Katol, District Nagpur. ... PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1.Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur
Division, Nagpur.
2.Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Katol, District Nagpur.
3.Superintendent of Police,
Nagpur (Rural), Nagpur.
4.Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Katol, Tahsil Katol,
District Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS.
---------------------------------
Mr. A.Z. Mirza, Advocate h/f. Mr.S.P. Sonwane, Advocate
for the Petitioner.
Mr.A.M. Joshi, A.P.P. for Respondents.
----------------------------------
Rgd.
Judgment wp974.25
2
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : DECEMBER 02, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard.
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of
learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for
final disposal.
2. By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order
dated 10.11.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Katol and
also the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the Divisional
Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur by which the petitioner
came to be externed from Nagpur District for a period of two
months.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that an enquiry under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) was conducted by the
Rgd.
Judgment wp974.25
Sub Divisional Police Officer, Katol Division, Katol, however, there is
no reference of any in-camera statements in the said notice. He
further submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent
no.2 refers to the in-camera statements recorded by the Sponsoring
Authority. He therefore, submits that on this sole ground the petition
deserves to be allowed.
4. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf
of respondents vehemently submits that admittedly in-camera
statements were recorded and it discloses that the conduct of the
petitioner is harmful to the society. He refers to the statements at "A"
and "B". He further submit that considering the criminal history of
the petitioner, a detail order was passed, as 4 crimes are registered
against him. Not only that, preventive action under Section 107 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 126 of the Bhartiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was taken, however, as the same did
not serve any fruitful purpose, therefore, last resort was adopted by
externing the petitioner. Considering the entire material placed on
Rgd.
Judgment wp974.25
record, the order of externment was passed by the respondent no.2.
He further submits that the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur has
also confirmed the order by considering the entire material.
6. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it
appears that notices under Section 59 of the Act were issued on
04.10.2025 and 09.10.2025, however, it does not refer to any in-
camera statements. It appears from the record that the Sponsoring
Authority has recorded in-camera statements along with the proposal,
which was referred to the Sub Divisional Police Officer for verification
of those statements.
7. Section 59 of the Act, speaks about hearing to be given
before passing order of externment under Sections 55, 56, 57 or 57-A
of the Act. It specifically provides that before submitting the report to
the Externing Authority, it is a duty of the officer who has conducted
the enquiry under Section 59 of the Act, to inform the person in
writing the general nature of material allegations against him and
given him reasonable opportunity to tender explanation to the
Rgd.
Judgment wp974.25
allegations referred in the notice under Section 59.
8. Perusal of both the notices i.e. dated 04.10.2025 and
09.10.2025, reveals that it does not disclose even recording of any in-
camera statements, when Section 59 mandates that what ever
allegations are leveled against the petitioner, a gist to that effect is
required to be reflected in the notice. Section 59 is the soul of the
entire externment proceeding. If the gist of material allegations is not
mentioned, then it would result in violation of principles of natural
justice. In other way it can be said that the petitioner was deprived
from tendering explanation against the allegations which are made in
the notice under Section 59 of the Act. Violation of aforesaid
parameters would amount to vitiating the entire proceeding. Even the
learned Divisional Commissioner has failed to take into this aspect,
and therefore, committed a gross error to that effect.
9. In this view of the matter, admittedly the notice does not
contain any reference of recording of in-camera statements. Thus,
Rgd.
Judgment wp974.25
considering this fact, the petition succeeds and hence the following
order.
ORDER
(1) Criminal Writ Petition is allowed.
(2) The order passed by the respondent no.2 - Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Katol dated 10.11.2025, so also
the order passed by the respondent no.1 - Divisional
Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur dated
20.11.2025, are hereby quashed and set aside.
(3) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
JUDGE
Rgd.
Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 03/12/2025 16:12:48
