ASHOK SHINVAR MALI Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition, challenging the externment order, can be disposed of on a short point that the authorities have exceeded their power in externing the petitioner not only from area of his activities where he has been committing offences and generating fear among the residents but also from the other districts where the petitioner had not committed any crime or carried on illegal activities.

(2.) BY an order dated 22nd February, 1996 respondent No. 1 ordered the externment of the petitioner from the districts of Thane, Bombay, Raigad, Nasik, Pune and Ahmednagar. In the order there is a mention about the several crimes registered against the petitioner from the year 1990 to 1995 for offences of theft, unlawful assembly, trespass and offence under the provisions of Arms Act. This petition was admitted on 13-5-1996 and rule was issued. Thereafter by an order dated 21st August, 1996 the order of externment was stayed on the condition that the petitioner should report to Ashagad Police Station every Sunday between 8. 00 a. m. and 8. 00 p. m. For all these years from 1996 till today no return was filed on behalf of the respondents or brought to the notice of this Court that any further crimes have been committed by the petitioner. Mr. Kotwal the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the order of externment is excessive in as much as though the crimes are said to have been committed by the petitioner mostly in the jurisdiction of Dahanu Police Station and Gholwad Police Station, by the impugned order of externment the petitioner is externed not only from these areas or district of Thane but also from districts of Bombay, Raigad, Nasik, Pune and Ahmednagar. In this respect reliance is placed on the two judgments of the Division Benches of this Court, one in the case of (Umar Mohamed Malbari v. K. P. Gaikwad, Dy. Commissioner of Police and another), reported in 1988 (2) Bom. C. R. 724 : 1988 Mh. L. J. 1034 : 2000 All. M. R. (Cri) 578 and second in the case of (Balu v. The Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur), reported in 1969 Mh. L. J. 387. In my view, the instant case is surely covered by the ratio of the decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in the aforesaid two cases and, therefore, the impugned order of externment is liable to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) IN the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of externment is hereby quashed and set aside and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (c) of the petition. Petition allowed.