Dismissed

Sampat Sayalu Gauda v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC7 May 2012APL/422/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application challenging the validity of an externment order passed under the Bombay Police Act. The court rejected grounds regarding the issuing officer's competence, lack of application of mind, absence of in-camera statement details, and ambiguity regarding the appeal authority.

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed and the rule was discharged, upholding the validity of the externment order.

Sampat Sayalu Gauda Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

Ladda

¶2

1 apl-422-12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 422 of 2012.

¶6

Sampat Sayalu Gauda .. Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents.

¶9

Shri shyamrishi R. Pathak for the applicant.

¶10

Mr S.S.Pednekar, A.P.P.for the Respondents.

¶11

CORAM : A.R. Joshi, J. DATE : 7^th May, 2012. (In Chamber at 5:oo p.m.)

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

The application is taken up for hearing and heard finally at the interim stage.

¶14

Rule. Rule is made returnable and heard forthwith. Heard rival submissions at length.

¶15

1of8

¶16

2 apl-422-12

¶17

The present application is preferred by the applicant, an externee, challenging the order dated 19^th March, 2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone-X, Mumbai, externing the applicant for a period of six months from territorial jurisdiction of Mumbai City and Brihan Mumbai limits. Vide the impugned order, the applicant was made aware that he has right to prefer an appeal against the said externment order, within thirty days before the State Government. Apparently, without preferring such an appeal to the State Government the applicant filed the present application for quashing and setting aside the externment order, mainly on the grounds :-

¶18

(a) The Officer issuing the show cause notice is not competent to issue such notice inasmuch as he was not authorized by the concerned competent authority.

¶19

(b) The externment order is passed without there being any application of mind inasmuch as in externment order there is no mention of MIDC C.R.No.428/2011 which is mentioned at serial No.9 in the show cause notice.

2of8

3 apl-422-12

(d) There is no mention in the externment order as to before which Government the applicant has right to prefer an appeal within thirty days of service of the externment order on him.

¶24

Prior to discussing the grounds and the merits of the case of the applicant, certain factual position can be narrated in order to have proper perspective of the matter.

¶25

Initially, a notice was issued against the applicant on 3^rd November, 2011 by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Andheri Division. The said notice was issued as per the provisions of Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. In the said show cause notice various details were given as to activities of the applicant by which there was reasonable apprehension that he is causing breach of peace and endangering the person and property of the people residing in the area of M.I.D.C. Andheri, Subhash Nagar, Rebello Compound, Gupta Compound, Bhangarwadi, Mahakali Road, Sipz area, Ambedkarnagar, Gautamnagar, Bhimnagar and adjacent area of Mumbai City and Brihan Mumbai limits. By the said show cause notice, the applicant was asked to give reasons as to why he should not be externed for a period of two years beyond the territory of Mumbai City and Brihan Mumbai limits.

¶26

3of8

¶27

4 apl-422-12

¶28

Accordingly, he appeared and took part in the inquiry and thereafter the inquiry report, along with relevant documents, was placed before the Competent Authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-X, Mumbai for passing the orders.

¶29

From the office of the Competent Authority i.e.the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-X, Mumbai a notice was sent to the applicant dated 28^th February, 2012 asking him to remain present before the Authority on 1^st March, 2012 either by himself or through his constituted attorney. The applicant was also allowed to bring witnesses, if any, in support of his case. Thereafter, after complying with the requisite procedure, the externment order is passed which is under challenge in the present petition.

¶30

So far as the first objection on behalf of the applicant is concerned, it must be mentioned that the show cause notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Andheri Division Mumbai and in the first paragraph of the said show cause notice dated 3^rd November, 2011, it is specifically mentioned that he has been appointed as an Inquiry Officer by the Competent Authority i.e. the Deputy

¶31

4of8

¶32

5 apl-422-12

¶33

Commissioner of Police, Zone-X, Mumbai. This fact in itself has not been controverted by the applicant at any time when he was given an opportunity to represent himself before the Inquiry Officer, so also before the Competent Authority. In view of specific mention in the show cause notice and considering that the Inquiry Officer being the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Andheri Division Mumbai being an Officer of the Rank above the Inspector, the first submission is devoid of merit and cannot be accepted.

¶34

Regarding the second submission as to lack of application of mind by the Competent Authority while passing the impugned order of externment, what is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the offence mentioned in the show cause notice at serial No.9 MIDC C.R.No.428/2011 has not been specifically referred to in the externment order. There is no merit in this objection. So far as the offences mentioned in the externment order, on the basis of which the objective satisfaction has been arrived at by the Competent Authority, were also mentioned in the show cause notice. In view of this, there is no substance in this argument as to non application of mind by the Competent Authority while passing the impugned order.

¶35

5of8

¶36

6 apl-422-12

¶37

So far as the third objection is concerned as to no details given in the externment order concerning in camera statements, this Court has carefully gone through the said in camera statements of the two witnesses as detailed in the show cause notice and reference to that effect is made in the externment order. In the show cause notice, various details as contemplated by the provisions of Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act are even mentioning the week of a particular month, in case of the first witness “August, 2011” and in case of the second witness “July, 2011”. Apart from this, there is specific mention of time and the detailed conduct of the applicant and his associates while creating an atmosphere of terror and giving threats to the said witnesses. On this aspect, the following authorities are brought to the notice of this Court by the learned A.P.P.for the State.

¶38

(I) Gafoor Dastagir Sheikh vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶39

2006 DGLS (Cri) Soft 855.

¶40

(II) Gazi Saduddin vs. State of Maharashtra

¶41

2003 DGLS (Soft)578.

¶42

6of8

¶43

7 apl-422-12

¶44

In the above authorities, it is held that the objective satisfaction of the Competent Authority cannot be interfered, still there is another view possible based on the facts brought before the Competent Authority. Further it is held that from the recitals of in camera statements if the date and time of the incident can be ascertained, coupled with the details as to the activities of the externee and when there is sufficient disclosure about date of the incident without quoting the exact date, such general description as to the occurrence of the events narrated by the in camera witnesses is sufficient enough to hold that the externee is indulging in the activities prejudicial to the person and property of the residents of the locality.

¶45

In view of the above, the third objection also does not have

¶46

any merit.

¶47

Last objection, raised, is concerning no clear understanding was given to the applicant as to before which the Government he can prefer an appeal which is allowed by the Statute. On this aspect, attention of this Court is drawn towards the last paragraph of the externment order, which reads that the applicant can prefer an appeal

¶48

7of8

¶49

8 apl-422-12

¶50

within 30 days before the 'Government' against the externment order. Much emphasis was placed on the word “Government”. It is submitted that there is no specific mention as to “Maharashtra Government” and as such there is confusion created in the mind of the applicant as to before which 'Government' he can prefer an appeal. There is no substance in this objection also, only for the reason that the entire externment order is required to be read as a whole. Moreover, there is specific mention in the earlier paragraph of the externment order that after service of the externment order on the applicant from that day onwards till the period of externment order, he cannot enter Mumbai City and Brihan Mumbai limits without prior permission of the Maharashtra Government. By no stretch of imagination, it can be considered that a confusion has been created in the mind of the applicant by not mentioning the words “Maharashtra Government” so far apprising the applicant of his right to prefer an appeal within thirty days of service of the externment order.

¶51

In view of the above, there is no merit in the present application and same is accordingly dismissed. Rule stands discharged.

¶52

Application is disposed of, accordingly.

¶53

(A.R.Joshi,J)

¶54

8of8

Sampat Sayalu Gauda v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sampat Sayalu Gauda v. the State of Maharashtra 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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Dnyaneshwar Mahadev Pawar

Robinson Moses David Vs Manish Gunaji Patade and Anr.

Kailash Mathura Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahendra S/O Preamasji Manwatkar Vs Raten S/O Champat Yesenkar

Radheyshyam S/O Koduji Kumbhare Vs Govardhan S/O Bhiwaji Lanjewar and Anr.

M/S Gajanan Oil Products, Shegaon, Thr. Chatrabhuj Nandlal Bhattad Vs Raghuvirprasad Sohanlal Viad and One