This Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an impugned order that partly allowed an appeal against an externment order, reducing the petitioner's ban from one year to nine months. The Court found no merit in interference.
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.
wp-830-18(4)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 830 OF 2018
Aayub Khudbuddin Jamadar ..Petitioner Vs. Superintendent of Police & Ors ..Respondents
Mr. Anil Shitole for the Petitioner Mrs. S. V. Sonawane APP for the Respondent State
CORAM :R. M. SAVANT, & SARANG V KOTWAL,JJ DATE : 10th APRIL, 2018
P.C.
1 The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order dated nil October 2017 passed by the Commissioner Pune Division Pune, by which order the Appeal filed by the Petitioner being Appeal No.181 of 2017 came to be partly allowed and the externment of the Petitioner came to be reduced from 1 year to 9 months. The Petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 9-3-2017 under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act 1951, to show cause as to why he should not be externed from Kolhapur in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 55 of the said Act. In the said show cause notice the offences under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Gambling Act which were registered against the Petitioner who was alleged to be a gang leader and the other members of the gang have been mentioned and which have been listed from Item No.1 to 81 in the said show cause notice dated 9-3-2017. The
1 of 4
mmj
wp-830-18(4)
said show cause notice was followed by another show cause notice dated 22-52017 which show cause notice was in the nature of a supplementary show cause notice asking the Petitioner to show cause. In the said show cause notice the in-camera statements of the two witnesses have been referred to. The incamera statements of the said witnesses impinges upon the alleged activity of the Petitioner and his other gang members on account of which the offences have been alleged under Section 12(A) of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Gambling Act.
2 The Petitioner vide his reply dated 25-6-2017, replied to the said show cause notice. The sum and substance of the reply was that the show cause notice based on the FIRs registered against the Petitioner was unjustified in view of the fact that the Petitioner is not an accused in most of the FIRs which have been registered, as a consequence of the show cause notice being issued to the Petitioner and the reply filed by the Petitioner, a hearing was afforded to the Petitioner and his Advocate by the Externing Authority i.e. Superintendent of Police Kolhapur. The Externing Authority by its order dated 18-8-2017 made the show cause notice absolute and externed the Petitioner for a period of one year from the limits of Kolhapur District. The order passed by the Externing Authority is an elaborate order as can be seen from its reading, dealing with the claims and contentions which were urged on behalf of the Petitioner and the other gang members. The activities of the Petitioner
2 of 4
mmj
wp-830-18(4)
have been succinctly stated in the order passed by the Externing Authority on the basis of which the Externing Authority has reached the subjective satisfaction that the Petitioner was required to be externed. In so far as some of the other gang members are concerned, they have been externed only for a period of 6 months from Kolhapur District. The said order dated 18-8-2017 was challenged by the Petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner by the impugned order dated Nil October 2017 has dismissed the Appeal. The Divisional Commissioner whilst dismissing the Appeal has adverted to the subjective satisfaction which was reached by the Externing Authority on the basis of the material on record. The Divisional Commissioner having regard to the said material on record did not find fault with the subjective satisfaction which was reached by the Externing Authority. The Divisional Commissioner however, reduced the period of externment in so far as the Petitioner is concerned from one year to 9 months. As indicated above, the Divisional Commissioner has by the impugned order partly allowed the Appeal and has reduced the period of externment. We are informed that the said period of externment is to come to an end shortly.
3 The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Shitole would seek to re-urge the submissions which have been urged before the Externing Authority and the Appellate Authority i.e. the justification for externing the Petitioner for a period of one year from Kolhapur District.
3 of 4
mmj
wp-830-18(4)
4 We have with the assistance of the Learned Counsel for the parties perused the impugned orders and on such consideration we are of the view that the orders passed by the Externing Authority as well as the Appellate Authority do not merit any interference in the Writ Jurisdiction of this Court. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
[SARANG V. KOTWAL, J]
[R.M.SAVANT, J]
4 of 4
mmj
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the order reducing the petitioner's externment period and dismissing his appeal merits interference by this Court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Aayub Khudbuddin Jamadar
Superintendent of Police
R. M. Savant
Sarang V Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
