Remanded

Santosh Raghuraj Singh v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Sept 2015WP/3199/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an appeal order restricting the petitioner's externment under the Maharashtra Police Act. The court found the appellate authority failed to provide valid reasoning for excluding the petitioner from the Navi Mumbai Police Commissionerate and ordered the matter remanded for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; matter remanded to respondent no.2 for fresh consideration with directions to restore appeal and dispose within four weeks.

Santosh Raghuraj Singh Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

910-WP-3199-2015.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3199 OF 2015

¶4

Santosh Raghuraj Singh Versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶6

..Petitioner.

¶7

..Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Nitin P. Dalvi, advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.V.Saste, APP for the State.

¶9

Coram : RANJIT MORE & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. Date : 23^rd September, 2015.

¶10

P. C. :

¶11

Heard Mr. Dalvi the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Saste the learned APP for the State.

¶12

2 This petition arises out of externment order dated 26.6.2015 passed under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act. By the said order, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Circle II, Panvel externed petitioner for a period of two years from Raigad and Thane Districts. Petitioner challenged this order by filing Appeal No.113 of 2015 before respondent no.2-Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai. By the impugned order dated 6.8.2015, respondent no.2 restricted petitioner's externment to Raigad District and area under the jurisdiction of Navi Mumbai Police Commissionerate.

¶13

Shivgan 1/5

¶14

910-WP-3199-2015.doc

¶15

3 Mr. Dalvi, the learned counsel for petitioner, submits that the petitioner alleged to have committed offence in Raigad District and it is not even alleged that petitioner has committed any offence within the jurisdiction of Navi Mumbai Police Commissionerate. He submits that petitioner is residing at Koparkhairane and, therefore, he be allowed to stay there and if he is allowed to stay there, he will not enter Raigad District during the period of externment.

¶16

4 Mr. Saste, the learned APP, on the contrary, opposes this petition. He submits that this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere in the impugned order. He submits that this petition is devoid of any merits and the same be dismissed.

¶17

5 Having considered rival submissions and having gone through the impugned order, we find that appellate authority namely, Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai (Respondent No.2) has varied the externment order thereby restricting the same to Raigad District and area of Navi Mumbai Police Commissionerate. In support of his operative order, respondent no.2 has given some reasons in paragraph 5.3. Respondent no.2 in this paragraph has observed that the criminal activities of the petitioner are restricted to Raigad District. However, petitioner is externed from other districts also on the ground of transportation facilities. It is further observed that transportation facilities cannot be the ground for externment of the petitioner

2/5

Shivgan

910-WP-3199-2015.doc

from Thane District. Based on these reasons, area of externment is restricted to Raigad District and area under the Navi Mumbai Police Commissionerate. We, however, do not find any reason in this order to extern the petitioner from the jurisdiction of Navi Mumbai Police Commissionerate.

¶22

6 If the petitioner's externment from Thane District cannot be justified only on the ground of transportation facilities then similar analogy is also applicable to petitioner's externment from Navi Mumbai Police Commissionerate jurisdiction. However, there is no reasoning in the impugned order to that effect. In these circumstances, we have no alternative but to remand the matter to respondent no.2 for fresh consideration. We, accordingly, dispose of this petition by passing the following order:

¶23

(1)The impugned order dated 6.8.2015 passed by respondent no.2 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to respondent no.2 for fresh consideration.

¶24

(2)Respondent no.2 shall restore Appeal No.113 of 2015 to the file and decide the same afresh after hearing the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶25

(3)Petitioner is at liberty to apply for interim relief

¶26

Shivgan 3/5

¶27

910-WP-3199-2015.doc

¶28

pending the hearing of the aforesaid appeal. In the event, such application is preferred , respondent no.2 shall dispose of the same within a period of one week from the date of filing such application.

¶29

(4) Petitioner is at liberty to supply additional material in support of his contention.

¶30

Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶31

[R.G.KETKAR, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

CERTIFICATE

4/5

Shivgan

910-WP-3199-2015.doc

Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed judgment/order.

¶37

Shivgan 5/5

Santosh Raghuraj Singh v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Raghuraj Singh v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Shafir Ahamad Sahabali Chawdhary and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Viral Hasmukhray Ajmera and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Arun Laxman More Vs Addl. Director General of Police and Inspector General of Prisons and Ors.

Santosh Ram Suryawanshi Vs Senior Inspector of Police and Ors.

Anna Durai Raman and Anr. Vs Adarsh Industrial Estate and Ors.

Suyesh @ Joy Satish Dixit Vs the State of Maharashtra