Disposed

Harishchandra Sitam Chauhan v. the Dy. Commissioner of Police Zone Xi Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Dec 2015WP/3668/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court observed that the appellate authority under the Maharashtra Police Act took 10 months to decide appeals against police externment orders, rendering them infructuous. The Court directed the appellate authority to dispose of such appeals expeditiously in the future to uphold personal liberty.

What did the court decide?

A copy of the order forwarded to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, to issue appropriate directions for expeditious disposal of future appeals.

Harishchandra Sitam Chauhan Vs the Dy… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

WP 3655, 3668 and 3669.15

¶2

Sr.No.19

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3655 OF 2015

¶4

Shyamsunder Ramashray Pande ..Petitioner Versus 1.The Dy.Commissioner of Police, Zone XI, Mumbai and ors. ..Respondents

¶5

with

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 3668 OF 2015

¶7

Harishchandra Sitam Chauhan ..Petitioner Versus 1.The Dy.Commissioner of Police, Zone XI, Mumbai and ors. ..Respondents

¶8

with WRIT PETITION NO. 3669 OF 2015

¶9

Mohan Sitam Chauhan ..Petitioner Versus 1.The Dy.Commissioner of Police, Zone XI, Mumbai and ors. ..Respondents

¶10

Mr. U. N. Tripathi, advocate for the petitioner in all the petitions. Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP in writ petition Nos. 3655 and 3669 of 2015. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP in writ petition No.3668 of 2015.

¶11

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 3^rd DECEMBER, 2015.

¶13

P. C. :

¶14

Heard.

¶15

By the orders dated 25^th September, 2014/

¶16

30^th September, 2014, the Deputy Commissioner of Police externed the petitioners for the period of one year from the jurisdiction of Bombay

¶17

Shubhada S Kadam 1/3

¶18

WP 3655, 3668 and 3669.15

¶19

Sr.No.19

¶20

Police Commissioner for a period of one year from the date of passing of the orders. The petitioners being aggrieved, challenged the said orders by filing separate appeals under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1959, before the appellate authority on 30^th October, 2014. These appeals are dismissed by separate impugned orders which came to be passed on 31^st August, 2015. The externment period expired on 24^th September, 2015 and 29^th September, 2015 respectively. The petitions, therefore, have been rendered in infructuous.

¶21

Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, makes grievance that though the appeals came to be filed as long back as on 30^th October, 2014, the appellate authority took 10 months to decide the same resulting in defeating the petitioners' appeals. He submitted that, therefore, some directions be issued.

¶22

Having gone through the petitions and having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP, we find some merit in the contentions of Mr. Tripathi. Looking into the nature of the proceedings and especially the period for which the petitioners were externed, it was expected of the appellate authority to dispose of the appeals expeditiously so as to not render the appeals practically infructuous. The appellate authority should be cautious in such matters involving freedom and personal liberty of the citizens. We,

¶23

Shubhada S Kadam 2/3

¶24

WP 3655, 3668 and 3669.15

¶25

Sr.No.19

¶26

therefore, hope and expect that in future the appellate authority under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1959, shall dispose of the appeals expeditiously.

¶27

A copy of this order be forwarded to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Mumbai, for issuance of appropriate directions to the concerned appellate authority.

¶28

Subject to above, the petitions are disposed of.

¶29

[V. L. ACHLIYA, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶30

3/3

¶31

Shubhada S Kadam

Harishchandra Sitam Chauhan v. the Dy. Commissioner of Police Zone Xi Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harishchandra Sitam Chauhan v. the Dy. Commissioner of Police Zone Xi Mumbai and Ors.

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

Kishor Dattatraya Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Asha Vinayak Palve and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashunta Monteiro Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dnyanoba Sakharam Dhayarkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Popular Shares Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sanjay Ramniklal Sanghvi and Ors.

Sarita Biraju Yadav and Ors. Vs Indu Ganesh Yadav and Anr.