The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad rejected a writ petition challenging an order confirming the externment of the petitioner from the Aurangabad District. The court held that the order was within jurisdiction and supported by material.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1332.2016 Cri.WP.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1332 OF 2016
Ansar Shaha s/o.Kasam Shaha,
Age: 52 Years, Occu: Business,
R/o. Shaha Colony, Near Ansar
Colony, Padegaon, Aurangabad,
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
At present Hisoda [Kh.],
Tq.Bhokardan, Dist.Jalna. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Divisional Commissioner Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad
2. The Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad Division, Dist.Aurangabad
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-I/Spl. Executive Magistrate, Aurangabad.
4. The Assistant Police Commissioner, Cantonment Area, Cantonment, Aurangabad.
5. The Police Inspector, Chawani Police Station Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.Avinash N. Patil, Advocate for the
Petitioner
Mr.S.Y.Mahajan, Additional P.P.for the
Respondent Nos.1 to 5/State
...
1332.2016 Cri.WP.odt
2
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
K.K.SONAWANE,JJ.
Reserved on : 12.01.2017.
Pronounced on : 30.01.2017
JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):
1.The Writ Petition under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India takes
exception to the impugned order dated
23.09.2016 passed by respondent no.1 in
Externment Appeal, thereby confirming the
order dated 08.07.2015 passed by respondent
no.3.
2.The learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner invites our attention to the
grounds taken in the Petition and submits
that, the impugned order is not in conformity
with the provisions of Section 56 [1] [a] and
59 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. He
further submits that, there is no live link
in between initiation of the proceedings for
externing the petitioner from the boundaries
1332.2016 Cri.WP.odt
3
of Aurangabad District and the offences
registered against the petitioner, which are
mentioned in the show cause notice. He
further submits that, the externment order is
excessive. The petitioner, though, convicted
after full-fledged trial in two offences,
which are mentioned in the show cause notice,
nevertheless he was sentenced to suffer
simple imprisonment for 4 days and 5 days
respectively. It is submitted that, the
provisions of the Bombay Gambling Act are
separate and distinct and if the alleged
offences under the said Act are committed,
said alleged activities under that Act cannot
be taken as basis for initiating the
externment proceedings. The petitioner’s age
is of 52 years and he is suffering from
diabetes and blood pressure and taking
medical treatment regularly. He further
submits that, other family members are
dependent upon the petitioner therefore, his
1332.2016 Cri.WP.odt
4
presence at Aurangabad is necessary.
Therefore, he requested to take liberal view
in this matter.
3.On the other hand, the learned APP
appearing for respondent–State relying upon
the reasons recorded in the impugned order
and also the original record procured from
the office of the respondent authorities in
relation to the present case, submits that
the reasons assigned by the respondent
authorities are in consonance with the
material collected during the course of
externment proceedings, and therefore, the
petition may be rejected.
4.Heard the leaned counsel appearing
for the parties at length. With their able
assistance, perused the grounds taken in the
Petition, annexures thereto and the reasons
assigned by the respondent authorities in the
impugned judgment and order. Upon careful
1332.2016 Cri.WP.odt
5
perusal of the contents of the show cause
notice issued to the petitioner, it appears
that there are as many as 7 offences
registered against the petitioner. It is true
that, in two crimes mentioned at serial Nos.
1 and 2 the petitioner has been convicted and
sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment. Upon
perusal of the allegation against the
petitioner and the reasons assigned by the
respondent authorities relying upon the
documents / material collected during the
externment proceedings, it is abundantly
clear that, the movements/acts of the
petitioner are causing alarm, danger and harm
to person and property of the citizens at
Aurangabad. The provisions of Section 56 [1]
[a] of the Maharashtra Police Act, reads
thus:
56.Removal of persons about to
commit offence
(1) ....
1332.2016 Cri.WP.odt
6
(a) that the movements or acts of any person are causing or calculated to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or property or
aforesaid provisions, an order of externment
can be passed against a person whose
movements or acts are causing or calculated
to cause alarm, danger or harm to person or
property as provided in clause (a).
6. Both the authorities taking into consideration the prejudicial activities of the petitioner causing alarm, danger and harm to the public order has rightly externed the petitioner for two years from the boundaries of Aurangabad District. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar Vs. Dy.Commissioner of Police, State of Maharashtra1 , while explaining the scope and purport of the provisions of 1 AIR 1973 SC 630
1332.2016 Cri.WP.odt
7
Sections 56, 58 and 59 of the Maharashtra
Police Act in para 15 observed that it is
primarily for the externing authority to
decide how best the externment order can be
made effective, so as to subserve its real
purpose. How long, within the statutory limit
of 2 years fixed by Section 58, the order
shall operate and to what territories, within
the statutory limitations of Section 56 it
should extend, are matters which must depend
for their decision on the nature of the data
which the authority is able to collect in the
externment proceedings. There are cases and
cases and therefore no general formulation
can be made that the order of externment must
always be restricted to the area to which the
illegal activities of the externee extend. A
larger area may conceivably have to be
comprised with the externment order so as to
isolate the externee from his moorings.
1332.2016 Cri.WP.odt
8
7.In view of aforesaid discussion, we
are of the opinion that, the orders passed by
both the authorities are well within
jurisdiction and do not suffer from
jurisdictional error, and also the reasons
assigned are in consonance with the
material/documents collected during the
course of enquiry of the proceeding.
Therefore, no case is made out for
interference, and hence the Writ Petition
stands rejected.
DDC
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impulsion order confirming the externment order is legally sustainable.
Whether the petitioner's movement causing alarm and danger justifies the externment order.
Whether the petition challenging the externment order deserves interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar Vs. Dy.Commissioner of Police, State of MaharashtraRelied on¶49
Pandharinath Shridhar Rangnekar Vs. Dy.Commissioner of Police, State of Maharashtra 1 AIR 1973 SC 630 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ansar Shaha
The State of Maharashtra
S.S.Shinde
K.K.Sonawane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court