Dismissed

Devram Walmik Kolpe v. Sub Dthe Sub Divisional Magistrate Shirdi Division Shirdi Tq. Rahata Dist. Ahmednaivisional Officer

Bombay HC2 Aug 2024WP/764/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three criminal writ petitions challenging externment orders were dismissed. The court held that the rule against issuing prerogative writs when an efficacious alternative remedy exists applies. Unlike the distinguished precedent where jurisdiction was exceeded, no exceptional circumstances justified bypassing the appeal under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act.

What did the court decide?

All writ petitions stand dismissed as the alternate remedy is available to the petitioners.

Devram Walmik Kolpe Vs Sub Dthe Sub… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1008-Cri.WP.767-24.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

1008 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 767 OF 2024 RAMNATH @ RAMA LAHU KUNDALKE

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE SHIRDI DIVISION SHIRDI TQ. RAHATA DIST. AHMEDNAGAR

¶7

WITH

¶8

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 764 OF 2024 DEVRAM WALMIK KOLPE

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE SHIRDI DIVISION SHIRDI TQ. RAHATA DIST. AHMEDNAIVISIONAL OFFICER

¶11

WITH

¶12

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 772 OF 2024 GANESH SANJAY KOLPE

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE SHIRDI DIVISION SHIRDI

¶15

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Kishorkumar Bharatrao Borde. APPs for Respondent/s-State : Ms. P. R. Bharaswadkar, Mr. S. M. Ganachari, respectively.

¶16

CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J. DATE : 02.08.2024

¶17

PER COURT :-

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶19

learned APPs the respondent/State.

¶20

Learned APPs raised the objection that against the order

¶21

of the externing authority, the petitioners did not prefer an

¶22

1008-Cri.WP.767-24.odt

¶23

¶24

appeal under Section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act. Hence, the proceeding could not be entertained.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Umar Mohammed Malbari Vs. K. P. Gaikwad and another ; 1988 (2) Bom.CR 724 . The Bombay High Court took a view that the High Court will not issue a prerogative writ when an alternative remedy is available does not apply when petitioner comes to the Court with an allegation that his fundamental rights have been infringed. When an order of externment is passed against the petitioner, he can undoubtedly come to this Court with a writ petition on the ground that his fundamental right of freedom of movement is affected and this he can do without exhausting the other remedy provided for in the act viz. an appeal the State Government against the order. In view of the fact that the petitioner has been externed out of the areas covering three districts has also Greater Bombay, it will have to be held that his fundamental right to move freely throughout the territory of India which is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution has been infringed.

¶26

The Court was principally agreed that High Court will not issue the prerogative writ when an alternative remedy is available. However, the facts of the above case were that the

¶27

1008-Cri.WP.767-24.odt

¶28

¶29

externing authority had exceeded its jurisdiction and in that peculiar circumstances, the writ petition was succeeded. This

¶30

is not the case like that. Therefore, this Court is of the view that rule that the High Court will not issue a prerogative writ when alternate remedy is available would apply. The law is now settled that the Court should not exercise the writ jurisdiction where the is efficacious remedy is available, except in exceptional circumstances. There are no exceptional circumstances in this case.

¶31

Hence, all writ petitions stand dismissed as alternate remedy is available to the petitioners.

¶32

vmk/-

Devram Walmik Kolpe v. Sub Dthe Sub Divisional Magistrate Shirdi Division Shirdi Tq. Rahata Dist. Ahmednaivisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devram Walmik Kolpe v. Sub Dthe Sub Divisional Magistrate Shirdi Division Shirdi Tq. Rahata Dist. Ahmednaivisional Officer

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

Hitesh Ashok Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Kalyan Sudam Ramgude

Anmol Sunil Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Jekab Joseph Yadav Vs Manju W/O Jekab Yadav

Ramnath @ Rama Lahu Kundalke Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate Shirdi Division Shirdi Tq. Rahata Dist. Ahmednagar

Ganesh Sanjay Kolpe Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate Shirdi Division Shirdi