Quashed

Rahul S/O. Suresh Hatkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC24 Jul 2018WP/517/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashed an order of externment against the petitioner. The court held that the order was impermissible because authorities relied on an acquitted offence and failed to disclose the gist of in-camera witness statements, violating Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of externment passed by Respondent No.3 and confirmed by Respondent No.2 were quashed and set aside.

Rahul S/O. Suresh Hatkar Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

517.18WP

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.517 OF 2018

¶6

Rahul S/o Suresh Hatkar
Age : 35 years, Occ : Labour,
R/o Vitthal Nagar, Jalgaon,
Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.
...PETITIONER

¶7

 VERSUS

¶8

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through Principal Secretary,
 Home Ministry, Mumbai.

¶9

2) Addl. Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. 3) Sub-Divisional Police Magistrate, Jalgaon Sub Division, Jalgaon.

¶10

4) Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
 Jalgaon Sub Division, Jalgaon.
...RESPONDENTS

¶11

 ...
 Mr.S.D. Hiwarekar, Advocate for Petitioner.
 Mrs. V.N. Patil Jadhav, A.P.P. for Respondents

¶12

...

¶13

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
 V.K. JADHAV, JJ.

¶14

DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 19TH JULY, 2018
 DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 24TH JULY, 2018

¶15

517.18WP

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE, J.):

¶18

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally, with the consent of learned counsel
appearing for the parties.

¶19

2.This Petition is filed praying therein to
quash and set aside the impugned order of
externment passed by Respondent No.3 on 23rd
November, 2017 in File No.30/2017, and further
confirmed in an appeal by Respondent No.2 on 6th
February, 2018 in externment appeal No.85/2017.

¶20

3.The background facts for filing the
present Petition, as disclosed in the memo of
Petition, in brief are as under:

¶21

It is the case of the petitioner that
Respondent No.4 – Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
Jalgaon submitted the proposal to Respondent No.3,
thereby proposing the externment of the petitioner

¶22

517.18WP

¶23

¶24

from Jalgaon district. Respondent No.3 had issued
show-cause notice to the petitioner under Section
56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (for
short "the Act of 1951") on 25th October, 2017,
thereby calling upon the petitioner to give
explanation as to why he should not be externed
from Jalgaon district. The petitioner submitted
his reply on 16th November, 2017 and requested to
drop the externment proceedings against him.

¶25

4.It is the case of the petitioner that,
Respondent No.3 found the reply submitted by the
petitioner unsatisfactory and passed the order of
externment on 23rd November, 2017 thereby externing
the petitioner from Jalgaon district for the
period of two years. The petitioner, therefore,
preferred an Appeal under Section 60 of the Act of
1951 before Respondent No.2. However, Respondent
No.2, without considering the material brought on

¶26

record by the petitioner, has dismissed the appeal
on 6th February, 2018 and confirmed the order of

¶27

517.18WP

¶28

¶29

externment passed by Respondent No.3. Hence this
Writ Petition.

¶30

5.Learned counsel appearing for the

¶31

petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed
by the authorities below are perverse, arbitrary,
and suffers from non application of mind. The
action taken against the petitioner is politically
motivated, as his mother and father are the
political workers, and since 2000, either of them
has been elected as Councillor of the Municipal
Council. It is submitted that the Respondent
authorities, while issuing the show-cause notice
so also while passing the order of externment,
have relied upon the offence, viz:- Crime
No.19/2014 registered with Ramanand Nagar Police
Station, in which the petitioner has already been

¶32

acquitted of by the competent Court. It is
submitted that, there is no gist of statements of
the witnesses, whose in-camera statements have
been recorded.

¶33

517.18WP

¶34

¶35

6.Learned counsel further submitted that

¶36

there is no live link between the registration of
offences and initiation of present externment
proceedings, in as much as, the offences which
were registered in the year 2013 and 2014 have
also been relied upon by the respondent
authorities while initiating the externment
proceedings in the year 2017. In support of his
aforesaid submissions, learned counsel placed
reliance upon the exposition of law in the cases
of Sayeed Firoz S/o. Sayeed Noor V/s The State of
Maharashtra1, Ganesh Balasaheb Changle V/s Dy.
Commissioner of Police, Nashik2 and Sunil Mani
Shetty V/s Dy. Commissioner of Police and Ors3. He
therefore submits that, the Petition may be
allowed.

¶37

7.On the other hand, the learned A.P.P.

¶38

1 2016 All MR (Cri) 3410

¶39

2 2014(1) Mh.L.J. (Cri.) 653

¶40

3 2014(2) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 503

¶41

517.18WP

¶42

¶43

appearing for respondent/State, submits that, the
authorities after adhering to the procedure
prescribed under the provisions of Section 56(1)

¶44

(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951
(Hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1951”), have

¶45

rightly externed the petitioner from the
boundaries of Jalgaon district. She invites our
attention to the reasons assigned in the impugned
orders and also original record in relation to an

¶46

externment proceedings of the petitioner, and
submits that the Petition may be rejected.

¶47

8.We have given careful consideration to

¶48

the submissions of learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, and learned APP appearing for the
respondent – State. With their able assistance, we
have carefully perused the grounds taken in the
petition, annexures thereto, the reasons assigned
by the authorities in the impugned orders and also
the original record maintained by the office of
the Respondents.

¶49

517.18WP

¶50

¶51

9.Upon careful perusal of the documents

¶52

placed on record and the original record
maintained by the Respondent authorities in
relation to an externment proceedings of the
petitioner, it appears that, the petitioner is
already acquitted of in Crime No.19/2014
registered with Ramanand Nagar Police Station.
However, while passing the externment order
against the petitioner, the Respondent authorities

¶53

have also considered the said case for the purpose
of passing the externment order. Respondent

¶54

Authorities have not taken into consideration the
fact that, the petitioner was already acquitted
from crime No.19/2014. Upon careful perusal of the
impugned order, it appears that there is no gist
of statements of the witnesses, whose statements

¶55

have been recorded in-camera. It is not expected

¶56

that the names of the said witnesses should be

¶57

disclosed in the impugned order, however, it is
necessary to make mention in the order of

¶58

517.18WP

¶59

¶60

externment about what they have actually stated in
their statements, so as to arrive at subjective
satisfaction that, the movements or acts of the
petitioner are causing or calculated to cause
alarm, danger or harm to person or property.

¶61

10.Upon careful perusal of the offences

¶62

registered against the petitioner, it appears
that, some of the offences have been registered in
the year 2013 and 2014. However, registration of
the said offences have bearing on initiation of
externment proceedings, has not been properly

¶63

dealt with by the respondent authorities. On close
scrutiny of the material placed on record, we are
of the opinion that, there is no live link between

¶64

the offences registered against the petitioner and
initiation of externment proceedings against the

¶65

petitioner. We find considerable force in the
argument of learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that, the impugned orders are without
assigning any proper and adequate reasons so as to

¶66

517.18WP

¶67

¶68

legally sustain the order of externment of the
petitioner. The Division Bench of Bombay High
Court, Bench at Nagpur (Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari
and V.M. Deshpande, JJ) in the case of Sayeed
Firoz S/o Sayeed Noor (supra) has taken a view
that, merely making reference of recording in-
camera statements is not compliance of provisions
of Section 56 of the Maharashtra Police Act, but
the said statements need to be discussed in the
impugned orders, without disclosing the identity
of the witnesses so as to arrive at a subjective
satisfaction. The authorities have also not
mentioned at least in brief about the place of
incidents, as stated by the witnesses, whose
in-camera statements have been recorded.

¶69

11.In view of the discussion made herein

¶70

above, we are of the considered view that the
impugned orders passed by Respondent No.2 and
Respondent No.3 cannot legally sustain. Hence the
impugned order passed by Respondent No.3, and

¶71

517.18WP

¶72

¶73

confirmed by Respondent No.2, are quashed and set
aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer
clause "B" of the Petition. The Writ Petition

¶74

stands disposed of accordingly.

¶75

[V.K. JADHAV, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶76

SGA/-

Rahul S/O. Suresh Hatkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul S/O. Suresh Hatkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Suhas Chintaman Mulay Vs the Union of India and Others

Rauf Khan Wahab Khan Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bapu (Nandu) Prabhu Koli@Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra

M/S Ellora Construction Pvt. Ltd. through Its Managing Director Saleem Ahmed Khan Moh.Bismillah Kha Vs City and Industrial Development of Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. through Its Chief Engineer

Manjuviranna Kantayya Rai )C-4634) Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sharad S/O. Shyamsundar Pawale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others