Dismissed

Navnath Vilas Katkar v. Superintendents of Police Kolhapur and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Sept 2011WP/1728/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed three criminal writ petitions challenging externment orders. The court held that there was no error in the police authorities' assessment of the disturbances and threats created by the petitioners, concluding the petitions lacked merit and the orders were sustained.

What did the court decide?

Three criminal writ petitions challenging the externment orders were dismissed with no directions issued.

Navnath Vilas Katkar Vs Superintendents… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

hvn

¶2

1//wp//1728-1729-1730.11

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1728 OF 2011

¶6

Navnath Vilas Katkar ... Petitioner Versus Superintendent of Police, Kolhapur and anr.... Respondents

¶7

WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1729 OF 2011

¶8

Mangesh Prakash Yelavkar ... Petitioner Versus Superintendent of Police, Kolhapur and anr.... Respondents

¶9

WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1730 OF 2011

¶10

Arjun Shankar Vir ... Petitioner Versus Superintendent of Police, Kolhapur and anr.... Respondents

¶11

Mr. S..H. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. S.S. Pednekar, A.P.P. for State.

¶13

CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 23, 2011

¶14

P.C.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in all three matters

¶16

¶17

hvn 1//wp//1728-1729-1730.11

¶18

extensively.

¶19

The externment order passed by the Police Superintendent Kolhapur dated 29.12.2010 and confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority dated 31.3.2011 is impugned.,

¶20

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that Navnath, petitioner in W.P. No. 1728 of 2011 had three cases and one of them is turned into acquittal and two are pending. The petitioner Mangesh in W.P. No. 1729 of 2011 has two cases and petitioner Arjun in W.P. No. 1730 of 2011 has also two cases. The learned counsel submits that reliance to the four statements by the Authorities is illogical as there was apparently controversies either Navnath or Arjun with the one of the said complainant namely Vikram Bhosale. His wife Rakhi also gave statement which according to learned counsel for petitioner is in natural parlance as she is bound to support her husband.

¶21

The report of the authorities was verified by the Superintendent of Ponce. He has given hearing to Mr. Shinde, the counsel representing the petitioners, documents tendered by the petitioners were also verified, including acquittal which was claimed by the petitioners.

¶22

¶23

1//wp//1728-1729-1730.11

¶24

The authorities on re-verification of the statement found that earlier Vikram Bhosale was also associate with the petitioners. However, having severed the relations, they are regularly on cross terms and the area is put to disturbance. The petitioners have created terror in the area as under pretext of festivals they have habitually made demands to the persons in the locality. Non payment result in creating in arson in the area. The uncle of one of the witness was severally allegedly bitten. The learned Superintendent has considered the worth of statement of Mr.Vikram Bhosale or application filing prosecution vide Crime No. 111 of 2006. The reasons assigned by the Superintendent and confirmed by the appellate authorities does not display any error or any excessive characteristics squeezing the rights of the petitioners in externing him from Kolhapur district for one year.

¶25

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the offence were restricted to a particular district of either Laxmipuri or nearby police stations, therefore, the petitioners should not have been externed from the entire district. The petitioners' claim that they are gainfully employed and for that purpose certain documents ere

¶26

¶27

hvn 1//wp//1728-1729-1730.11

¶28

produced before the Superintendent of Police. They were also verified. Even offence in Crime No. 103 of 2009 was recorded involving outraging modesty and dacoity. The orders of the Superintendent of Police and the appellate authority having read together does not indicate that there is any error in appreciation of documents on the factual situation prevailing in the area.

¶29

The learned counsel places reliance to the judgment in the matter of Ganpat @ Ganesh Tanaji Katare Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police and Ors. 2006 (1) Mh.L.J. 510. In the said case externment was from the districts of Thane, Greater Mumbai, Mumbai Suburb and Raigad. This court had appreciated the same as the jurisdiction of the offence was restricted to area of Mulund. This court found there is nothing to show that area within the jurisdiction of Mulund is intimately connected to district Raigad.

¶30

It is pointed out that Navnath after externment orders entered the area of Kolhapur and faced another crime.

¶31

On revisiting the facts including the affidavit of Superintendent, I

¶32

do not see any error in the order, to exercise powers in writ jurisdiction.

¶33

¶34

hvn

¶35

1//wp//1728-1729-1730.11

¶36

Petitions lack merit. Hence, three petitions are dismissed.

¶37

(K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)

¶38

Navnath Vilas Katkar v. Superintendents of Police Kolhapur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navnath Vilas Katkar v. Superintendents of Police Kolhapur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushant Baban Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shailesh Gulab Advani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shayamsundar Rajaram Yadav Vs Sunita Shyam Sunder Yadav

Rashmikant Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mangesh Prakash Yelavkar Vs Superindents of Police Kolhapur and Anr.

Arjun Shankar Vir Vs Superintendents of Police Kolhapur and Anr.