Quashed

Anthony Vinod Pillai v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Apr 2017WP/981/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged external orders issued under Maharashtra Police Act. The Division Bench held that external orders were quashed because the authority relied on chapter cases undisclosed in the show cause notice, violating the settled principle of disclosing material features.

What did the court decide?

Impugned external orders passed by DCP and Divisional Commissioner are quashed and set aside.

Anthony Vinod Pillai Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

wp-981/17.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 981 OF 2017

¶4

Mr. Anthony Vinod Pillai. ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents.

¶5

Mr. Karan Bhosale i/b P. U. Gaikwad for the Petitioner. Ms. S. D. Shinde, APP for the State.

¶6

Coram : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. Date : April 4, 2017 .

¶7

P. C. :

¶8

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and learned APP for the State. Petition is filed challenging externment orders passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Mahim Division and the Divisional Commissioner, Kokan Division, Mumbai respectively under section 56 and 60 of Maharashtra Police Act, externing the Petitioner from Greater Mumbai area for the period of one year.

¶9

Mr. Bhosale, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner received two notices under section 59 of the Act, 1^st notice is dated 22^nd June 2016 and 2^nd notice is dated 30^th August 2016. He submitted that the Petitioner has given reply to the first notice, however, opportunity to give reply to the

1 / 3

patilsr

wp-981/17.

second notice was not given to the Petitioner. He also submitted that the Petitioner is externed on the basis of registration of six cases against him at Mahim Police Station and three chapter cases. He submitted that the Petitioner however was not given any notice in respect of the chapter cases.

¶14

We have gone through the said notices as well as externment orders. We find that so far as the chapter cases against the Petitioner are concerned, there is no reference in either of the notices given to the Petitioner under section 59 of the Act. Learned APP also does not dispute the fact that the Petitioner was not given any notice about the chapter cases.

¶15

Thus, it is clear that externment authority while externing the Petitioner relied upon material which was not disclosed to the Petitioner in the show cause notice. By now it is well settled position of law that whatever material is being relied upon by the authority while issuing show cause notice or hearing the externment proceedings, he must disclose in the show cause notice the broad features of the material. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision of Division Bench of this court in Ganu v. M. V. Chitale [1988

2 / 3

patilsr

wp-981/17.

CriLJ 1547].

In the light of above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. The DCP considered and relied upon the extraneous material which was not referred to in the show cause notice. The impugned orders therefore suffer from vice of procedural illegality. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside.

¶21

[SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶22

3 / 3

¶23

patilsr

Anthony Vinod Pillai v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anthony Vinod Pillai 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

Indur Kartar Chhugani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pratap S/O. Ramanlal Saraiya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Archie Julius Silveria Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shrikant Madhav Karve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Amitkumar Babasaheb Shelake Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prashant Subhash Khairnar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.