Allowed

Sandip Ananda Mahalungkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC5 Sept 2013WP/2403/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined a writ petition challenging an order of externment. The Court found no material linking the petitioner's activities to the diverse districts covered and held the order arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights. The petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Both the orders of the externment authority and appellate authority are set aside and the petition is allowed.

Sandip Ananda Mahalungkar Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

wp2403-13.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2403 OF 2013

¶4

Sandip Ananda Mahalungkar .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra (through SDM Khed, Dist. Pune) .. Respondents

¶5

Mr.Avinash Kamkhedkar for petitioner Mr.K.V.Saste, APP for State.

¶6

CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & G.S. PATEL, JJ Date : 5^th September 2013.

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

1] The order of the S.D.O./ Externing Authority dated 9^th May 2013 and confirmed by the appellate authority on 22^nd November 2013 is under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. With the consent of petitioner’s Advocate and Mr.Saste, learned APP we have heard this petition finally.

¶9

2] The only point which has been raised before us is that

¶10

¶11

wp2403-13.doc

¶12

there are two crimes registered against the petitioners at Chakan police station and if at all they could be relied upon, there are two chapter cases equally initiated by the same police station. In the final order of the externment, the petitioner has been externed from entire Pune, Ahmednagar and Satara districts. The order and action therefore, is high handed, arbitrary and excessive.

¶13

3] Mr.Saste, learned APP appearing for State could not point

¶14

out to us any material which could enable us to hold that the petitioner has been externed from contiguous districts and because of the proximity of these places and the town and villages in these districts to the limits of Chakan police station or the criminal activities of the petitioner.

¶15

4] The order also does not show as to how the petitioner’s activities are spread over to such a vast area as could be said to be forming part of entire Pune, Ahmednagar and Satara

¶16

¶17

wp2403-13.doc

¶18

districts. Apart from the distances what we find is that means of communication and transport may have developed to a great extent but there must be some connection with the activities of

¶19

the petitioner within the limits of the concerned police station and adjoining districts to which they are likely to spread over. This link and nexus has not been established in this case and

¶20

the districts have been picked up at random to pass this order of externment. Such an order interferes with the petitioner’s

¶21

fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution of India. The order under challenge cannot be sustained. Both the orders of externment authority and the appellate authority are set aside. The petition is allowed

¶22

accordingly.

Sandip Ananda Mahalungkar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip Ananda Mahalungkar 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

Manish Madhukar Shinde and Ors. Vs the Police Commissioner

Rajwardhan Babaso Patil Vs Vijaysinha Jadhav

Rajvardhan Babaso Patil and Ors. Vs Sub Divisional Police Officer and Ors.

Javed Mobin Khan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mahesh Vithal Patil Vs Purushottam Karad and Anr.

High Court on Its Own Motion Vs Pratima Durgesh Mishra