Dismissed

Bipin Mayakal Mashi v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC21 Jun 2013WP/425/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the High Court at Aurangabad dismissed the petitioner's challenge against an order of externment passed by the State Government. The Court held that the record, including in-camera statements, was sufficient to justify the order and that principles of natural justice were followed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal writ petition stands dismissed.

Bipin Mayakal Mashi Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

917 WP.425.13

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 425 OF 2013

¶5

Bipin Mayakal Mashi,

¶6

Age : 34 Years, Occu : Service, R/o Khastranagar Chawani Aurangabad.

¶7

... PETITIONER

¶8

V E R S U S

¶9

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary of Home Department, Mantralaya Mumbai – 32.

¶10

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Circle Office No.1 Aurangabad, City area Aurangabad. ( Copy to be served on Respondent No.1 through G.P. High Court Bench at Aurangabad. ) ... RESPONDENTS

¶11

Mr. M.R. Andhale, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶12

Mr. V.G.Shelke, AGP for the Respondents / State.

¶13

¶14

917 WP.425.13

¶15

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J. DATE : 21st June, 2013.

¶16

O R D E R:

¶17

1 The petition is filed to challenge the order made by the

¶18

Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Aurangabad and the order made by the

¶19

State Government, Home Department in Externment Appeal No.EXT-2012/284/SPL-3 (B). The externment proceeding was started

¶20

against the Petitioner on the basis of the report given by Chawani

¶21

Police Station, Aurangabad. The police station had informed that

¶22

atleast four criminal cases were filed against the Petitioner by this

¶23

police station since the year 2008 for the offences punishable under

¶24

Sections 384, 385, 506 etc. of the Indian Penal Code. It was informed

¶25

that the Petitioner has created terror in the society and by giving

¶26

threats to the people, he was extracting money from the persons of

¶27

Chawani locality. It was informed that nobody was ready to come

¶28

forward to give statement against the Petitioner and so, it had become

¶29

necessary to pass an externment order against the Petitioner to keep

¶30

¶31

917 WP.425.13

¶32

him out of Aurangabad district. Show cause notice was issued in the

¶33

externment proceeding and after taking the Say of the Petitioner, some

¶34

in-camera inquiry was held. Some statements came to be recorded

¶35

during the in-camera proceeding. On the basis of this record, the

¶36

externment order came to be passed on 11th December, 2012. The

¶37

order is to remain in force for a period of one year. Thus, a period of

¶38

six months is already over. The aforesaid record is used as the base

¶39

by the Secretary, who decided the appeal for the Government.

¶40

2 It was submitted for the Petitioner that he has some civil

¶41

dispute with the Priest of Church of Chawani area. It was submitted

¶42

that the Petitioner is a leading person of the area, who have

¶43

constructed houses and who are under threats of eviction at the

¶44

instance of the Church. It was submitted that due to the leading role,

¶45

which the Petitioner has been playing, the Priest and other persons of

¶46

the Church have created some false record by joining hands with the

¶47

police and some false cases are filed against the Petitioner. It was

¶48

submitted that a civil suit is also pending in respect of the dispute, in

¶49

¶50

917 WP.425.13

¶51

which the Petitioner is one of the plaintiffs. A copy of the suit filed in

¶52

the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) is produced in this

¶53

proceeding. However, the copy shows that the suit is dismissed.

¶54

3 It is not disputed that aforesaid cases are pending against

¶55

the Petitioner. This Court has perused the record of in-camera inquiry

¶56

and it is consistent with the observations made in the order. There was

¶57

no reason for these persons to give false statements against the

¶58

Petitioner that he has created terror in the locality and he has been

¶59

extracting money from them by showing weapons like knife. He was

¶60

compelling to give fixed amount by way of Khandani, every month for

¶61

carrying out any business or construction in that area. Some record is

¶62

produced to show that many persons of that locality had applied to

¶63

police to take action against the Petitioner. On the other hand, a copy

¶64

of the application given to police by some persons other than from

¶65

Christian community is produced to show that there is some dispute

¶66

between the persons of other community and some persons of

¶67

Christian community. This circumstance will not certainly help the

¶68

¶69

917 WP.425.13

¶70

Petitioner as it shows that there is some tension, which may be due to

¶71

some dispute or due to the activities of the Petitioner and other things.

¶72

At present, there is aforesaid record against the Petitioner. This record

¶73

is sufficient to make out case for externment in view of the aforesaid

¶74

circumstances. The order cannot be called as excessive or made

¶75

without reason or without application of mind.

¶76

4 Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the

¶77

observations made by this Court in cases reported as [ 2013 ALL MR

¶78

(Cri) 18, Bombay High Court ( Mohamad Siddiki Haji Moha Shafi

¶79

@ Ansari Vs. The State of Maharashtra @ Ors. ] and [ 2011 (4) Mah

¶80

L R 227, Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench ( Aleem Khan Salim

¶81

Khan Vs. Sub-Divisional Officer and others ) ] . In the first case, the

¶82

value of in-camera statements is discussed and in view of the

¶83

circumstances that there was nothing to show that higher authorities

¶84

had verified the statements, which were recorded long back and as no

¶85

opportunity was given to the opponent, it was held that principles of

¶86

natural justice were not followed and the externment order was not

¶87

¶88

917 WP.425.13

¶89

sustainable in law. In the second case, this Court observed that the

¶90

material placed by the opponent of that case was not considered and

¶91

so there was violation of fair play and justice. The facts and

¶92

circumstances of each and every case are always different. The say

¶93

offered by the Petitioner and the aforesaid circumstances show that principles of natural justice were followed in the present case and

¶94

sufficient opportunity was given to the Petitioner to defend the proceeding.

¶95

5 This Court holds that there are no merits in the petition

¶96

and so, the criminal writ petition stands dismissed.

¶97

ndm

Bipin Mayakal Mashi v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bipin Mayakal Mashi v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Ramesh Champalal Kankaria Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunil Suresh Unde Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Rajendra Appa Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ram Babarao Mahake Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shivaji Mahadev Zhori Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S Garware Synthetics Limited Mumbai Thr Managing Director Vs the Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. Aurangabad and Anr.