Dismissed

Asha Mayala Sunnar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Feb 2011WP/288/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed a criminal writ petition challenging a show-cause notice. The Court held that partial acquittal of one offence is not ground to quash the notice and refused to examine the applicability of offences under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 to Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act 1951, leaving these contentions for the Authority.

What did the court decide?

The show-cause notice was not quashed; the petition failed.

Asha Mayala Sunnar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2011)

PPD

16.wp.288-11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.288 OF 2011

¶6

Smt.Asha Mayala Sunnar.

¶7

..Petitioner.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State of Maharashtra.

¶10

..Respondent.

¶11

Mr.Amol Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.A.S. Gadkari, A.P.P. for the State.

¶12

CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ.

¶13

DATED : 24^th FEBRUARY, 2011.

¶14

P.C.

¶15

Only two contentions have been pressed before us. The first argument is that the Authority who has issued show-cause notice was aware of the fact that the Petitioner has already been acquitted in relation to one of the offences referred to in the show-cause notice. The second contention is that the show-cause notice refers to offences punishable under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 which cannot be made the basis to proceed under Section 56 of Bombay Police Act 1951 as the said offences are not referred to therein.

¶16

¶17

16.wp.288-11

¶18

Insofar as the first contention is concerned, it is open to the Petitioner to pursue the same before the concerned Authority. We say so because it is not the case of the Petitioner that he has been acquitted in respect of all the offences referred to in the show-cause notice. If the Petitioner is acquitted in one of the offences that by itself cannot be ground to quash the show-cause notice as a whole. The Petitioner will have to pursue his remedy before the Appropriate Authority in response to the said show-cause notice. All questions in that behalf are left open.

¶19

With regard to the second contention, the same seems to be attractive at the first blush, however, what is lost sight of by the Petitioner, is that, there are other offences referred to in the showcause notices which admittedly fall under Chapter XII, XVI & XVII of the Code. The same can be the basis to initiate action under Section 56 of the Act. Even this is a matter which will have to be agitated before the concerned Authority. We are not inclined to quash the show-cause notice on this contention.

¶20

It is lastly argued that the Petitioner is not keeping good health and the order of externment, if passed, would cause serious

¶21

¶22

16.wp.288-11

¶23

miscarriage of justice and inconvenience to the Petitioner. We are not impressed by such argument, more so, considering the limited controversy that is required to be considered by us as to whether the show-cause notice ought to be quashed in exercise of Writ jurisdiction.

¶24

Accordingly, this Petition fails and the same is dismissed with above observations.

¶25

(A. R. JOSHI, J.)

¶26

(A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)

Asha Mayala Sunnar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asha Mayala Sunnar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Rambriksh Rai Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sadashiv Mahadev Tambe Vs the Commissioner of Police and Anr.

Laheri a. Bhanushali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vinod Ganpatrai Khamitkar and Anr. Vs Ravi Kripalsingh Talreja and Anr.

Vitthal Vajir Solanki Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Samirunnissa W/O Mohammed Munirulhaque Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.