Dismissed

Kesarbai Ranjit Bhat and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Sept 2021WP/2730/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of externment for two years, modified by an appellate authority to one year. The Court held that the authorities duly satisfied themselves regarding the petitioners' illegal activities and the necessity of externment, finding no scope to interfere.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition stands rejected; the impugned orders of externment are upheld.

`1]`	`Smt. Kesarbai Ranjit Bhat` `Age – 68 years, Indian Inhabitant` `Occ – House wife,`	`]` `]` `]` `]`
`2]`	`Shri Hiralal Ramchandra Minekaru` `Age – 52 years, Indian Inhabitant` `Occ – Business,`	`]` `]` `]` `]`
`3]`	`Jayshree Hiralal Minekaru` `Age – 42 years, Indian Inhabitant` `Occ – House wife` `R/at Near Hanuman Nagar,` `Near Train Track, Ghorpadigaon, Pune`	`]` `]` `]` `]` `]` `]` `]…`	`.. Petitioners.`
	`Versus`
`1]`	`The State of Maharashtra, through` `to be served through Public Prosecutor` `High Court (A.S.) Mumbai`	`]` `]` `]` `]`
`2]`	`The Divisional Commissioner of Police, Pune` `to be served through Public Prosecutor` `High Court (A.S.) Mumbai`	`]` `]` `]`
`3]`	`The Deputy Commissioner, Zone-5, Pune` `to be served through Public Prosecutor` `High Court (A.S.) Mumbai`	`]` `]` `]` `]…`	`.. Respondents.`

1]

Smt. Kesarbai Ranjit Bhat
Age – 68 years, Indian Inhabitant
Occ – House wife,

]
]
]
]

2]

Shri Hiralal Ramchandra Minekaru
Age – 52 years, Indian Inhabitant
Occ – Business,

]
]
]
]

3]

Jayshree Hiralal Minekaru
Age – 42 years, Indian Inhabitant
Occ – House wife
R/at Near Hanuman Nagar,
Near Train Track, Ghorpadigaon, Pune

]
]
]
]
]
]
]…

.. Petitioners.

Versus

1]

The State of Maharashtra, through
to be served through Public Prosecutor
High Court (A.S.) Mumbai

]
]
]
]

2]

The Divisional Commissioner of Police, Pune
to be served through Public Prosecutor
High Court (A.S.) Mumbai

]
]
]

3]

The Deputy Commissioner, Zone-5, Pune
to be served through Public Prosecutor
High Court (A.S.) Mumbai

]
]
]
]…

.. Respondents.

2The above Writ Petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order dated 9th April 2021 passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. the Divisional Commissioner of Police, Pune City by which order the Appeal filed by the Petitioners came to be partly allowed and resultantly the period of externment mentioned in the externment order dated 31st December 2020 passed by the Externing Authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-5, Pune came to be curtailed to one year.

3It is not necessary to burden this order with unnecessary details. Suffice it to say that, the Petitioners herein were issued a show cause notice by the Respondent No.3 herein, who is the Externing Authority, under the provisions of the Maharashtra Police Ac. The said show cause notice referred to the offences registered against the Petitioners. The allegations against the Petitioners are that they are acting as a gang and indulging in preparing and selling the country liquor in their vicinity and other parts of Pune District. It is also alleged that the Petitioners are also threatening the person residing in the said area that in case they try to inform the police or oppose their activities, in

that case such persons would be sternly dealt with, and that the said activities of petitioners are causing endanger to the health of many persons. The offences mentioned in the show cause notice are alleged to have been registered under the Bombay Prohibition Act, and NDPS Act. It is also alleged that the Petitioners are creating terror in the locality. Therefore, the Respondent No.3 issued the show cause notice dated 04/11/2020 to the Petitioners to show cause as to why the externment proceedings should not be initiated against them and as to why they should not be externed from Pimpari Chinchwad Commissionerate, Pune City and Pune Districts for a period of 2 years. Thereafter externment proceedings were initiated against the Petitioners, which culminated in the impugned externment order.

4Pursuant to the said notice, the Petitioners appeared before the Respondent No.3 and filed their Say before the Respondent No.3. It was the case of the Petitioners in their reply that, they are suffering from various ailments. They denied all the allegations mentioned in the show cause notice. It is case of the Petitioners that they are not indulging in any illegal activities and there is no danger to the life and property of the people at their hands, and the offences mentioned in the show cause notice are pending for adjudication before the Court. It is also the case of the Petitioners that the Petitioner No.2 got acquitted of the case registered against her under the NDPS Act. In the said background, it was the case of the Petitioners that the

5The Respondent No.3 - the externing authority considered the reply filed by the Petitioners as also the material on record and reached a subjective satisfaction that the activities of the Petitioners are adverse to the society as the said activities of preparing and selling the country liquor and cannabis have potential to cause addiction of liquor and cannabis amongst the people and thereby having an effect on their financial well-being as well as the families, and therefore, there is a danger to the life of the people and their properties. The Externing Authority was of the view that considering the alleged illegal activities of the Petitioners, it was necessary to extern the Petitioners. The impugned order records that the witnesses are not ready to adduce evidence publicly against the Petitioners for fear of physical harm as also loss of their property. The impugned order refers to 8 criminal cases which are shown to be pending for adjudication. Therefore, Externing Authority passed order dated 31st December 2020 thereby externing the Petitioners for a period of 2 years from Pimpari Chinchwad Commissionerate, Pune City and Pune District.

Authority - Respondent No.2 i.e. the Divisional Commissioner of Police, Pune City. In the interregnum, the Petitioners have filed a Writ Petition being No.1400 of 2021 before this Court for expediting the hearing of the said Appeal. By order dated 1st April 2021, this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition by directing the Respondent/Authority to decide the appeal filed by the Petitioners within two weeks from the receipt of the said order.

7The Appellate Authority considered the offences registered against the Petitioners and, also considered the factum of whether the Externing Authority has rightly reached the subjective satisfaction that it has reached. After considering the material on record, the Appellate Authority did not deem it appropriate to interfere with the Externment Order, however, modified the Externment Order thereby reducing the period of externment from 2 years to 1 year. The said order dated 31st December 2020 passed by the Externing Authority and, the order dated 9th April 2021 passed by the Appellate Authority are under challenge in this Writ Petition.

8The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that the cases registered against the Petitioners are under the Bombay Prohibition Act. He further submits that the cases registered against the Petitioners are pending for adjudication. It is also submitted that the show cause notice issued by the Respondent No.2 is based on wrong information and old cases. That, the

Respondent/Authorities failed to record the findings that which witness is not coming forward to give evidence against the Petitioners. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the in-camera statements of two witnesses cannot be relied upon, as the facts need to be tested on the anvil of the evidence and cross examination. The Respondents/Authorities have not considered the evidence available before them in proper perspective, and without considering the documents of the Petitioners, they passed the impugned orders. It is submitted that there is not a single conviction to the credit of the Petitioners and, the Respondents/Authorities have failed to take into consideration the said fact while passing the order of externment. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact the externing authority did not arrive at subjective satisfaction that the witnesses are unwilling to come forward to give evidence in public against the proposed externees i.e. the petitioners herein by reason of apprehension to safety of their part, persona and property. He therefore submitted that the orders of externment need interference. He submits that the writ petition may be allowed.

9The learned APP, appearing for the Respondents/State submitted that the order of externment passed by the Respondent/Authority is fully justified and, the Respondents/Authorities after due satisfaction have passed the impugned orders. It is submitted that the Petitioners are habitual offenders and indulging in illegal activities of preparing and selling the liquor. It is also

10We have given our careful consideration to the rival submissions. With the able assistance of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for State, perused the pleadings and grounds taken in the petition, annexures thereto, original record pertaining to the externment proceedings of the petitioner and reasons assigned in the impugned order by the Respondent/Authority.

11Upon careful perusal of the notice dated 6th October, 2020 issued to the Petitioners it is noticed that as many as five offences are registered against Keasarbai, four offences against Hiralal Minekaru and two offences are registered against Jayshree Minekaru. It appears that in Crime No. 470/2020 registered with Mundhwa Police Station, the aforesaid three persons are made accused. It appears from the activities alleged against the petitioners that they are acting as a gang and preparing country liquor and selling in the vicinity of not only Mundhwa district but other parts of Pune district. The said alleged activities of petitioners are wide spread and many persons including youths are getting addicted to the liquor, and as a result the families of said persons are affected. It appears from the reading of the allegations that petitioners are not only illegally selling the liquor but also threatening the persons residing in the

said area that, in case they try to inform the police or oppose their activities, in that case such persons would be sternly dealt with. It appears that said activities of petitioners are causing endanger to the health of many persons. As a result of the activities of petitioners and threats given by the petitioners, the people are not coming forward to depose against them by a reason of apprehension to safety of their part, persona and property.

12Upon careful perusal of the alleged activities of the petitioners and the material collected by the respondents, it is crystal clear that the illegal activities of the petitioners are causing endanger to the life of persons not only residing in Mundhwa, but also other parts of the Pune district. The externining authority i.e. the Commissioner of Police Zone-V, Pune City, has given cogent reasons in the order that the petitioners are operating as a gang and illegally selling country liquor which is affecting health of citizens residing in the Pune district. The petitioners have created terror in the vicinity that in case any citizen objects them for carrying out alleged activities, in that case, they will ruthlessly deal with such persons. As a result, witnesses are not coming forward to depose against them. It is not necessary to elaborate the reasons. Suffice it to say that, the show cause notice issued to the petitioners is in conformity with provisions of Section 59 of the Maharashtra Police Act. Secondly, all the necessary procedure has been followed during the proceedings conducted by the respondent-authorities. Definite findings are

recorded by the externing authority that the petitioners are operating as a gang and selling liquor which is affecting health of public in Pune district. The appellate authority has also confirmed the order passed by the externinig authority. While exercising writ jurisdiction it may not be appropriate to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts which are in consonance with the material on record and mandate of Section 55 of said Act.

13In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, there is no scope to interfere in the impugned orders passed by both the authorities, while exercising writ jurisdiction. For the aforestated reasons, the writ petition stands rejected.

Kesarbai Ranjit Bhat and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kesarbai Ranjit Bhat and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siddhesh Parshuram Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Korrehmand Homi Golwala through Natural Guardian Mr. Golwala Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Zeeshan Abdul Malik Khot Brother of Farhan Abdul Malik Khot Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Saroj Kumar Fulchand Prajapati Shyam Ravindra Rathi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Meghnath Gurunath Travadan @ Pille Vs Director General of Police (Prison) and Ors.

Param Preetsingh S/O Narindra Singh Rajput Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.