SAYYAD NAZIM SAYYAD SALAR Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Fulzele, learned Additional P.P. who appears by waiving notice for the respondents. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) By the impugned orders, the petitioner has been externed from Amravati District for a period of one year. The first impugned order has been passed on 11.09.2020 and the second which is an order by the appellate authority is passed on 07.12.2020. These orders are passed against the the petitioner under Section 56(1) (a) (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, these orders are arbitrary, as they fail to consider the basic fact which affects this case. This fact is of absence of any live link between the alleged crime and prejudicial activities of the petitioner and the purpose sought to be achieved by passing an externment order.