RAJENDRA DEVIDASDESHMUKH Vs. SHAMLAL GOYAL SUB DIVISIONALMAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the externment orders passed by the authorities below. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, by his order dated 29th March, 1989, externed the petitioner for his prejudicial activities under Section 56 (1) (a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), from four Districts viz. , Nasik, jalgaon, Dhule and Ahmednagar. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 60 of the said Act to the State Government. The appellate authority vide its order dated 16th October, 1989 partly allowed the appeal. The order of externment passed by the Sub-Divisional magistrate on 29th March, 1989 came to be confirmed, but, however, the petitioner was externed only from one District i e. Nasik. The other three Districts came to be deleted. The petitioner now seeks to challenge the legality and correctness of both these orders.

(2.) ON May 20, 1989, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Manmad. who was appointed an Enquiry Officer, issued notice under Section 59 of the Act, calling upon the petitioner to give his explanation in regard to the allegations contained in the said notice as well as the criminal cases which are catalogued in ths said notice. There was a reference to ten cases which were registered at Manmad Police Station. The Sub-Divisional police Officer, after holding enquiry, forwarded the enquiry papers to the sub-Divisional Magistrate for appropriate orders. The Sub-Divisional magistrate, after hearing the petitioner, vide his order dated 17th August, 1989, dropped the externment proceedings against the petitioner. It would be of some consequence to reproduce the relevant portion of that order and it reads as under :

(3.) IT appears that after about four months, the Sub-Divisional Police, officer, w ho was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, on December 14, 1988 issued a show cause notice under Section 59 of the Act in respect of the proposed enquiry for the activities of the externee under Section 56 (b) of the Act. In the said notice, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer referred to the same incidents which were covered by the earlier notice dated 20th May, 1988. In addition to these eight incidents, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer also relied upon the later two incidents. The first incident took place on 8th October, 1988 under which the petitioner and his 4-5 associates assaulted one Ramesh Ananda Pawar near ambedkar Chowk at Manmad with stick and caused injuries to him. At that time, there was a tension between the Shiv Sena and Dalit Panther at Manmad and it was likely to disturb the law and order in that area. The Police, therefore, registered a chapter case at Manmad Police Station being Chapter Case No. 116 of 1988 under Section 107 Cr. P. C on 21-10-1988 and the same is pending. The second incident also alleged to have taken place on 8th October, 1988 at Village Dahigaon and as a result thereof, a crime came to be registered at Chandwad Police Station bearing Crime Register No. 96/88 for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, therefore, called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be extetned from the revenue districts of Nasik, Dhule, Jalgaon and Ahmednagar. The petitioner showed his cause. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, after holding enquiry, submitted the papers to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Malegaon. The sub-Divisional Magistrate, Malegaon, on 27th January, 1989 issued notice to the petitioner to remain present for further hearing before him on 4th february, 1989. The notice is at pages 26-27. Surprisingly, in this notice, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Malegaon, restricted his enquiry in respect of eight incidents which were the subject-matter of the first notice dated 20th May, 1988 and which notice subsequently came to be dropped by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate vide his order dated 17th August, 1988. From those facts, it is clear that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has restricted his enquiry for the externment proceedings initiated against the petitioner in respect of only eight incidents which were already enquired into by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and vide his order dated 17th august, 1988, he had dropped the proceedings for the reasons which we have reproduced earlier.