KISHOR RAJARAM DURGE Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel on both sides.

(2.) RULE returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.

(3.) IT is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that there is a reference to in-camera statements of witnesses 'a' and 'b' in the show cause notice. However, no details as to the date, time and place of those incidents, narrated by these two witnesses, has been mentioned. Therefore, the petitioner was deprived of meeting the allegations made by these two witnesses. Secondly, it is submitted that in the externment order, no reasons are assigned as to why the petitioner should be externed from Thane district, Greater Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban and Raigad District, when the activities which are mentioned in the show cause notice are confined to Ulhasnagar only and that too to Madrasipada, Dhobighat areas and its adjoining areas. IT is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order suffers from vice of excessive externment from the aforesaid districts in respect of which no data was placed and entire externment order was in the circumstances, liable to be quashed. In support of her contention, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has cited the decision of this Court, rendered in the case of Punjaji Dagadu Gaikwad Vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported in 2001 (3), Mh. L. J. 926.