Tarbez Hakimoddin Siddique vs State of Maharashtra through Sub Divisional Magistrate Ramtek Division Nagpur

1.State of Maharashtra, through Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramtek Division, District Nagpur. 2.State of Maharashtra, through Sub Divisional Police Officer, Ramtek Division, District Nagpur. 3.Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS .

¶10

Mr. M.N. Ali, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms P. Bawankule, A.P.P. for Respondents. ----------------------------------

¶11

CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 16, 2026.

Rgd.

Judgment

wp57.26

2

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶18

The petitioner is seeking to challenge the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramtek Division, District Nagpur under Section 56[1][b] of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1951 Act” for short) whereby he came to be externed from entire Nagpur District for a period of 6 months, and order dated 19.01.2026, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur.

¶19

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that three notices were issued to the petitioner i.e. dated 14.11.2025, 16.11.2025 and 17.11.2025 under Section 59 of the 1951 Act, where by he was asked to tender reply against proposed action under Section

Rgd.

Judgment

wp57.26

3

56[1][b] of the 1951 Act. He submits that in all these three notices there is no compliance of Section 56[1][b] of the 1951 Act, meaning thereby in all three notices, though in-camera statements are recorded, however, the same are not reflected in the said order and so the very purpose of enquiry under Section 59 of the 1951 Act stands vitiated for the reason that he did not get an opportunity to reply to the said in-camera statements. It is submitted that later on even the externing Authority i.e. the Sub Divisional Magistrate has also issued notice to the petitioner, in that notice also there is no reference of in-camera statements, therefore there is no compliance of Section 56 [1][b] of the 1951 Act and the entire proceedings, as well as the impugned orders are vitiated. Further, it is submitted that the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate has recorded his reply in verbatim, and has also not applied his mind. It is submitted that all the three crimes which are shown against the petitioner to base the externment, perusal of the same would show that the first crime was registered in the year 2012, the second one was registered in the year 2023, these are crimes which are considered by the externing authority, however, there is only one

Rgd.

Judgment

wp57.26

4

crime which is registered in the year 2025 i.e. Crime No.377/2025 on 25.08.2025. It is submitted that while passing the impugned order, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has considered all the offences, and therefore, this fact itself is sufficient to show that there is total nonapplication of mind.

¶30

On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. opposes the petition by submitting that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has not only rightly applied his mind, but, has given an opportunity to the petitioner by issuing notices. She submits that even the Sub Divisional Police Officer has also complied with the provisions of Section 59, after due enquiry, after issuing notice to the petitioner and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to tender reply, has forwarded his recommendation to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. After considering the entire record in subjective manner, the Sub Divisional Magistrate after being subjectively satisfied, has passed the order, and therefore, there is no defect in the same. It is submitted that the activities of the petitioner, who is engaged in sand business, is also required to be taken into consideration, since his activities is affecting the ecological Rgd.

Judgment

wp57.26

5

balance of the nature, therefore, such persons does not deserve any leniency. She submits that even the Divisional Commissioner by applying his mind has confirmed the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, therefore, not only procedure has been followed, but, the principles of natural justice have also been followed, and thereafter the orders are passed.

¶35

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and with their assistance have gone through the notices issued to the petitioner. Admittedly the notices specifically states that it was issued under Section 59 of the 1951 Act in order to extern the petitioner under Section 56[1][b] of the 1951 Act. Upon perusal of those notices, it revealed that there is no reference of recording of in-camera statements, however, after perusal of the report of the Sub Divisional Police Officer, wherein he has recommended to extern the petitioner for two years, shows recording of ‘A’ and ‘B’ statements. Further perusal of the impugned order shows that the sponsoring authority has recorded statements ‘A’ and ‘B’, however, and though they were referred in the impugned order, it does not find place either in the Rgd.

Judgment

wp57.26

6

notice issued by the Sub Divisional Police Officer or by the externing Authority i.e. Sub Divisional Magistrate. Therefore, one fact is crystal clear that the petitioner has not been given an opportunity to oppose the said statements or to explain them. In order to give him a fair opportunity, it was the duty of the Sub Divisional Police Officer to refer the gist of statements in the notice issued under Section 59 of the 1951 Act. Failure on the part of the Sub Divisional Police Officer as well as the Sub Divisional Magistrate amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, and therefore, it does not amount to compliance of Section 56[1][b].

¶40

Secondly, admittedly three offences are registered against

¶41

the petitioner, the details of which are as under :

¶42

Sr.No.	Crime No.	Sections.
1.	76/2012	410, 406, 409, 465, 468, 471, 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2.	206/2023	379, 109 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.
3.	377/2025	303[2], 49, 3[5] of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita read with Section 48[8] Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and Sections 4, 21, 3 and 15 of the Prevention of Damage to Public PropertyAct.

Rgd.

Judgment

wp57.26

7

Perusal of the above chart would show that the first crime was registered in the year 2012, whereas the second one was registered in the year 2023 and lastly the third one is registered in the year 2025. The impugned order shows that even the offence which were registered in the year 2012 and 2023 are taken into consideration by the externing Authority i.e. Sub Divisional Magistrate. Therefore, it is crystal clear that stale offences are considered, which do not have link with the impugned order. It is a settled position of law that in order to base the order of externment, there should be live link between the activities of the petitioner and the order of externment. Though one offence is of the year 2025, however, the externing Authority ought not to have considered the earlier two offences to pass the order of externment. Thus, it can be said that the order is passe without application of mind, and is therefore, required to be interfered with. Hence, the following order.

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(a) Criminal Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of.

Rgd.

Judgment

wp57.26

8

(b) The order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur and order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ramtek Division, District Nagpur are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶55

(c) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

Rgd.

¶58

Signed by: R.G. Dhuriya (RGD) Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 18/02/2026 10:21:36

Tarbez Hakimoddin Siddique v. State of Maharashtra through Sub Divisional Magistrate Ramtek Division Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarbez Hakimoddin Siddique v. State of Maharashtra through Sub Divisional Magistrate Ramtek Division Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sonam W/O Rajesh Khaparde vs State of Maharashtra through Police Station Sakkardara

Shaikh Tahemir @ Tammy Shaikh Samir vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso., Ps Umarkhed, Tq. Umarkhed Dist, Yavatmal

Suresh Sukaji Yetre vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso, Ps Pulgaon

Uday S/O Chandrashekhar Balapure vs Kuber Corporation a Partnership Fir Thr Its Partner Satynarayan Gokulchandji Zawar

Rahul @ Kalu S/O Chaman Chatre vs State of Maharashtra Thr Ps Tirora, Dist. Gondia Crime No. 261 of 2024

Nandkishor S/O Aatmaram Gawai vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps, Kingaon Raja, Tah. Sindkhed Raja, Dist. Buldhana