Allowed

Sandip Mahendra Pathariya @ Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Mar 2020WP/335/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed an order of externment dated 25.09.2019 due to apparent non-application of mind by the authority. Discrepancies were noted between the Show Cause Notice and the externment order regarding district inclusion and witness statement details.

What did the court decide?

Quashing and setting aside of the order of externment dated 25.09.2019 and the consequential appellate order dated 02.12.2019.

Sandip Mahendra Pathariya @ Patil Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

40-cri-wp-335-20.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 335 OF 2020

¶3

Sandip M. Pathariya @ Patil … Petitioner V/s.

¶4

The State of Maharashtra and anr. … Respondents

¶5

Mr. Raju Yamgar i/b Mr. Waseem Isa Shaikh for the Petitioner. Mr. S.S. Hulke, APP for the Respondent – State. API Vijay Ahire, Central Police Station, Ulhasnagar-3 present.

¶6

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE & N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : MARCH 4, 2020.

¶7

P.C.

¶8

1] Order of externment dated 25^th September 2019 externing the petitioner for period of one year has been questioned on various grounds.

¶9

2] We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP.

¶10

3] Externment order externs the petitioner from the districts of Thane, Mumbai city, Mumbai sub-urbs, Karjat and Panvel Tahsils of Raigad district.

1/3

Dinesh Sherla

40-cri-wp-335-20.odt

4] In Show Cause Notice under section 59(1) read with section 56(1) of Maharashtra Police Act issued on 12^th March 2019, districts mentioned are Thane, Mumbai sub-urbs and Raigad. Thus, in the impugned order, Mumbai city has been added without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. As argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is an illustration of non-application of mind.

¶15

5] In Show Cause Notice, there are two in-camera witnesses mentioned as witness ‘A’ and witness ’B’. In the impugned order, though these two persons are mentioned as in-camera witnesses, very same incident dated 14^th February 2019 is typed as part of their statements. In said order, these in-camera witnesses speak of incident dated 14^th February 2019, which has taken place at 11.15 p.m. In Show Cause Notice, insofar as in-camera witness ‘A’ is concerned, there is no mention of any date or time. In-camera witness ‘B’ speaks of the incident dated 19^th February 2019 at 10.25 pm.

¶16

6] Again, therefore, non-application of mind by the authority which has passed the order of externment is apparent.

2/3

Dinesh Sherla

40-cri-wp-335-20.odt

7] Therefore, we quash and set aside the order of externment dated 25^th September 2019. Consequently, appellate order dated 2^nd December 2019 is also quashed and set aside.

¶21

8] Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.

¶22

(N.R. BORKAR, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶23

3/3

¶24

Dinesh Sherla

Sandip Mahendra Pathariya @ Patil v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip Mahendra Pathariya @ Patil 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupesh Yashwant Pawar Vs Pooja Rupesh Pawar and Anr.

Maruti Ramchandra Gholap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajkumar Krishanchand Bawa @ Sharma and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pravin@Sonya Sanjay Algude Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shrikant Nonaya Kotian through Partner M/S K.D. Builders Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pravin@Sonya Sanjay Algude Vs the State of Maharashtra