Dismissed

Nasim Ahmed Salim Ahmed Shaikh v. the Dy. Commissioner of Police Zone X Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Nov 2011WP/2736/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an externment order under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The Court distinguished earlier precedent regarding in-camera statements as facts differed. Held that no interference is required under Article 227 of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; externment order confirmed.

Nasim Ahmed Salim Ahmed Shaikh Vs the Dy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2011)

WP/2736.11

SSK/910

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2736 OF 2011

¶6

Nasim Ahmed Salim Ahmed Shaikh Versus The Dy. Commissioner of Police Zone X Mumbai & Ors.

¶7

....Petitioner

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Meghashyam Kocharekar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the State.

¶10

CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J.

¶11

DATED : 23rd NOVEMBER, 2011.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Heard Mr. Kocharekar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

The petition pertains to proceedings for externment under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. By Order dated 5^th August, 2011, the competent authority viz. Deputy Commissioner of Police externed the petitioner for a period of two years from Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban District. This order is passed after issuance of notice and grant of an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause. The competent authority also relied upon the criminal cases pending against the petitioner as well as in-camera statements of the witnesses. The charges against the petitioner are serious ones. The competent authority on the basis of material before him has come to the conclusion that the

¶15

WP/2736.11

¶16

SSK/910 2

¶17

movements of the petitioner are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property. Subjective satisfaction is also recorded that the witnesses are not coming forward to depose against the petitioner, in view of the terror, created by him. This order of the competent authority is confirmed by the appellate authority.

¶18

Mr. Kocharekar, learned counsel for the petitioner, relies upon the decision of learned Single Judge in the case of Iqbal Hussain Abid Hussain Qureshi versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (1999) Vol101(1) Bom.L.R.631. The ratio of this judgment, shows that when in camera statement of the witness, no particulars of the place have been given and in the light of that petitioner was denied proper opportunity to show cause, the said ground could not have been the basis of formation of opinion. The ratio of this decision could not be made applicable to the case in hand as in-camera statements of the witnesses have categorically given particulars of the place where the petitioner is indulging in his criminal activities. Taking overall facts and circumstances into consideration, in my opinion, no interference with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is called for. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶19

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

Nasim Ahmed Salim Ahmed Shaikh v. the Dy. Commissioner of Police Zone X Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nasim Ahmed Salim Ahmed Shaikh v. the Dy. Commissioner of Police Zone X Mumbai and Ors.

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

Milan Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Maskur Alam Siddiqui Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Jindutt Investments and Financial Consultancy Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kuldeep Singh K. Nath Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pawan Kumar Ruia Vs Global Trade Finance Ltd. and Anr.

Ashok Jaykrushna Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra