BALASAHEB KUSHABA KADAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these petitions raise common questions of fact and law are, therefore, decided and disposed by this common judgment.

(2.) CRIMINAL Writ Petition No. 332 of 1990 filed by Balasaheb Kushaba Kadam challenges order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ahmednagar, in Externment Proceeding No. 22/88 directing petitioner to execute a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for Rs. 50,000/- each for ensuring good behaviour for a period of two years and dismissal of appeal by the State Government against the said order. He was served with a notice under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, pointing out that the activities of the petitioner in Deolali Pravara habitation and around it have caused alarm, danger and harm and 4 criminal cases have been filed against him and the petitioner is trying to create communal tension by instigating Hindus and Muslims and therefore, he should show cause as to why he should not be externed from the limits of Ahmednagar, Nasik, Aurangabad and Pune Districts. It appears that after the enquiry and giving hearing to the petitioner, Sub-Divisional Magistrate was pleased to direct him to execute the bond as mentioned above.

(3.) IN Criminal Writ Petition No. 333 of 1990 filed by Vasant Baburao Kadam---petitioner challenges the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rahuri, dated 31st March, 1990 in Externment Proceedings No. 16 of 1988 directing the petitioner to execute a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for Rs. 50,000/- ensuring good behaviour for a period of two years and the dismissal of his appeal by the State Government. In a notice served on the petitioner under section 59, it was alleged that petitioners activities in Deolali Pravara habitation and surrounding areas has caused alarm, danger and harm and there are two criminal cases pending against him and he is instigating Hindus against Muslims and attacking commoners in the name of Shiv Sena. After giving hearing to the petitioner and holding enquiry. Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed the petitioner to execute the bond as aforesaid.