Bombay High Court
Ramesh So Madhav Bawane vs The Divisional Commissioner Amravati on 13 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:12072
8.wp859.2025jud.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 859 OF 2025
Ramesh S/o Madhav Bawane
Aged about 46 years,
Occupation : Agricultural Labour,
R/o. Hudi (Bk.), Taluka Pusad,
... Petitioner
District - Yavatmal.
Versus
1 The Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati
2 The Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Pusad, Tah. Pusad,
District - Yavatmal
3 The Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
Pusad, Tah. Pusad, District - Yavatmal ... Respondents
4 The District Superintendent of Police,
Yavatmal, District - Yavatmal
5 Police Station Officer, Police Station
Pusad (Rural), District - Yavatmal
Mr. S.S. Nemade, Advocate a/w Mr. A.S. Nemade, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Bhagwan N. Lonare, APP for respondent Nos.1 to 5/State.
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : 13.11.2025
JUDGMENT:
Heard finally by consent of both the learned counsel
for the parties.
PAGE 1 OF 7
8.wp859.2025jud.odt
(2) Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. B.N. Lonare,
learned A.P.P. waives service for respondents. With consent of learned
counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.
(3) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, petitioners are challenging the confirmation
order dated 14.08.2025 passed by respondent No.1 - Divisional
Commissioner, Amravati and order dated 22/08/2024 passed by
respondent No.2 - Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pusad, Yavatmal,
whereby respondent No.2 has externed the petitioner under Section 56
of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 ("the Act of 1951"). The learned
counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is externed only on basis
of offences committed by him under the provisions of the Maharashtra
Prohibition Act, 1949. He further submits that as per the settled
position of law, the offences under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act
cannot form the basis to invoke the provisions of the Act of 1951 and
thereby on this short ground, he prayed to allow the petition. So as to
substantiate the aforesaid contention, learned counsel has relied on
the following judgments of this Court:-
(i) Sagarsingh Kesharsingh Bawari Vs. Ministry of Home
PAGE 2 OF 7
8.wp859.2025jud.odt
Department and others, 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 4407,
(ii) Paramjitsingh @ Jentil Sardar Vs. State of Maharashtra and
another, 2023 ALL MR (Cri) 1284,
(iii) Vijay @ Tyson s/o. Namdeorao Dongre Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others, 2017 ALL MR (Cri) 5254,
(iv) Hitesh Santosh Shinde and others Vs. The Divisional
Commissioner and others, 2024 ALL MR (Cri) 4174,
(v) Sagar Vinod Katole and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and
another (Criminal Writ Petition No.320/2025, decided on
01.07.2025),
(vi) Shivraj s/o Bhagwan Patil Vs. The Divisional Commissioner
and others (Criminal Writ Petition No.619/2018 with another
matter, decided on 10.07.2018).
(4) Per contra, learned APP vehemently submits that
the activities of the petitioner is squarely covered under the provisions
of Section 56 of the Act of 1951 and thereby, he supported the order of
externment and the confirmation order passed by respondent No.1.
(5) I have heard both the sides at length and also gone
through the case laws which are cited by the learned counsel for
petitioner. Upon perusal of the impugned order and the case laws, it
can be gathered that the petitioner is facing criminal trial for the
offences registered under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. It seems
PAGE 3 OF 7
8.wp859.2025jud.odt
from the record that, there are as many as 4 cases registered against
the petitioner under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act. The judgments
of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner,
unequivocally clarifies the position so far as externment under Section
56 of the Act of 1951 is concerned, that the offences under provisions
of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act cannot form the basis to invoke the
provisions of Section 56 of the Act of 1951. It would be useful to refer
to the judgment in the case of Sagarsingh Kesharsingh Bawari Vs.
Ministry of Home Department (supra), wherein it is held as under:-
"2......all other prosecutions are under the provisions of the Bombay
Prohibition Act and Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887.
The prosecution under Section 326 and 324 read with Section 34 is of
2010. The consideration of the prosecutions under the Bombay
Prohibhing Act and Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 by
the Authority vitiates the impugned order, inasmuch as it is the
settled law that for the purposes of passing the externment order,
these prosecutions cannot be taken into consideration."
The aforesaid position is reiterated in the case of Paramjitsingh @
Jentil Sardar Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) wherein this Court in
paragraph 13 has observed as under:-
"13. It would be necessary to go through the relevant record
PAGE 4 OF 7
8.wp859.2025jud.odt
to examine the correctness of the orders impugned in this
petition. It is undisputed that the crimes at Sr. Nos.4, 5, 6 and
7 were registered under the Section 65(e) of the Prohibition
Act. The crime at Sr. No.1 was registered under Section 142
of the Act of 1951. It is settled legal position that such crimes
cannot be taken into consideration to justify the externment
order. In this connection, useful reference can be made to the
decision in the case of Vijay @ Tyson S/o. Namdeorao Dongre
.v/s. The State of Maharashtra and Others3. In this case, it is
held that the crime registered under Section 65(e) of the
Prohibition Act for selling, buying and possessing intoxicant
could not be said to be prejudicial to the public peace,
tranquility and as such, cannot be made the foundation for
externment. It is to be noted that in view of Section 56 (1) (a)
and (b) of the Act of 1951, the offences registered under the
provisions of the Prohibition Act and the Act of 1951 could
not be said to be an acts as contemplated or understood by
the Clause (a) and (b) of Section 56 (1) of the Act of 1951.
Therefore, while deciding the fate of the impugned order, out
of the seven crimes these five crimes ought to have been
excluded while forming the subjective satisfaction by the
respondent No.2. Perusal of the externment order would
show that those crimes were registered in the year 2021. The
last crime was registered on 08.08.2021. Perusal of the
externment order would show that for the purpose of
recording subjective satisfaction for the purpose of passing
externment order these five crimes were relied upon as an
objective material. It is seen that on the basis of these five
crimes the live link between those crimes and the externment
PAGE 5 OF 7
8.wp859.2025jud.odt
proceeding was sought to be established. In my view, the
approach of the respondent No.2 was totally against the spirit
of Section 56 of the Act of 1951. In my view, this is important
aspect to conclude that the subjective satisfaction was
dented."
Therefore, considering the above exposition of law, it is
crystal clear that the provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act
cannot be invoked for externing the petitioner, and this settled position
of law was conveniently ignored by both the authorities i.e. respondent
Nos. 1 and 2.
(6) Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am
of the opinion that both the authorities i.e. respondent Nos.1 and 2
have miserably failed to take into consideration the above aspect of the
matter and therefore, committed gross error by externing the
petitioner from Yavatmal, Hingoli and Washim District for one year. In
this view of the matter, following order is passed:-
(I) Criminal Writ Petition is allowed.
(II) The Impugned order dated 22.08.2024 passed by respondent
PAGE 6 OF 7
8.wp859.2025jud.odt
No.2 - Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pusad in Criminal Case
No.56(b)/02/2024 and order dated 14.08.2025 passed by respondent
No.1 - Divisional Commissioner, Amravati in Appeal No. 56/2024 are
hereby quashed and set aside.
(7) Rule is made absolute in above terms.
[M.M. NERLIKAR, J.]
Prity
Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane PAGE 7 OF 7
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 14/11/2025 18:01:07
