Partly allowed

Satish Bhikan Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Jan 2007WP/2829/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition challenging the rejection of a stay application against an order of externment under the Bombay Police Act, this court quashed the appellate order due to a procedural error. The authority was directed to grant a fresh hearing within ten days, noting the precedent in Dalvi.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 22nd December 2006 is quashed; the Appellate Authority must decide the stay application afresh within ten days.

Satish Bhikan Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2829 OF 2006

¶3

 Satish Bhikan Yadav...Petitioner

¶4

vs.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra

¶6

...Respondent

¶7

Ms Shraddha Mohite for the Petitioner

¶8

 Ms Geeta Mulekar,A.P.P. for State

¶9

CORAM: A.S.OKA,VACATION JUDGE.
DATE : JANUARY 3,2007.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

 1. Rule. Learned A.P.P. waives service for State. By

¶12

 consent, taken up for hearing forthwith.

¶13

 2. An order of externment under the Bombay Police Act, 1951

¶14

 has been passed against the Petitioner. The Petitioner
 preferred a statutory Appeal before the Appellate Authority
 for challenging the said order. The Petitioner applied for
 stay of operation of the order of externment. By order dated
 22nd December 2006, the Appellate Authority rejected the
 Application for stay.

¶15

 3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner pointed out that

¶16

 the Application for stay has been rejected by observing that
 the offences registered against the present Petitioner are of
 very serious nature. She pointed out that the offences
 registered against the Petitioner are under section 110 of the
 Bombay Police Act,1951. She, therefore, submitted that the
 ground on which the Application for stay has been rejected is

¶17

-2-

¶18

a non existing ground.

¶19

 4. Faced with this submission, the learned A.P.P. states
 that the error is committed obviously because the stay
 Applications in a group of Appeals were decided together. The
 learned A.P.P., therefore, submitted that the Application for
 stay may be directed to be heard afresh.

¶20

5. Hence, I pass the following order :

¶21

 i) The order dated 22nd December 2006 passed by the Appellate
 Authority is quashed and set aside.

¶22

 ii) The Appellate Authority will decide the Application for
 stay made by the Petitioner afresh in accordance with law.
 The Appellate Authority is bound to take a note of the
 decision of this Court in case of Shamkumar Arjun Dalvi Vs.
 State of Maharashtra [1988 (1) Bombay Cases Reporter page
 131). The Appellate Authority will pass a fresh order within
 a period of ten days from the date of production of an
 authenticated copy of this order.

¶23

 iii) All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶24

 iv) Rule is made partly absolute in above terms.

¶25

-3-

¶26

JUDGE

Satish Bhikan Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Bhikan Yadav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Annamayil Parmashivam Vs Raju M. More and Anr.

Junaid Jamkhanawala and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bharat S. Dhanukar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kishor Modi Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mr. Devang Vijay Dholakiya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jinesh Rajendra Bhatt Vs State of Maharashtra