IQBAL MUNNAF SAYYED Vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition takes an exception to the order of externment dated 27th September, 2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-IV, Pune in Externment Case No. 19 of 2011, which is confirmed by the Principal Secretary (Special), Home Department, Government of Maharashtra vide its order dated 10th April, 2012 passed in Appeal No. EXT-2012/14/Spl.-3(A). The Respondent No. 1 herein was pleased to issue notice under Bombay Police Act, 1951 to the Petitioner on 13th August, 2012. The Petitioner appeared before the Respondent No. 1 and gave his reply. On 27th September, 2011, the Respondent No. 2 herein was pleased to issue the impugned order of externment under the provisions of Bombay Police Act, 1951 against the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of externment, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority, which came to be dismissed on 10th April, 2012. Hence, this Writ Petition.

(2.) Though the number of grounds are raised in the Writ Petition, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner mainly emphasized on the ground that, though the order of externment has placed reliance on C.R. No. 90 of 2010 dated 22nd February, 2010 registered at Hadapsar Police Station, but in the show cause notice, there is no reference to the said offence. In addition to the aforesaid grounds, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner also invited our attention to the other grounds taken in the Writ Petition and submitted that, the order of externment deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. appearing for the Respondent-State invited our attention to the contents of the affidavit-in-reply and submitted that, the involvement of the Petitioner is in serious offences like kidnapping, assault, extracting money from the citizens and other serious offences, which are stated in detail in the show cause notice issued to the Petitioner. The learned A.P.P. also invited our attention to that part of the affidavit where delay in issuing the order of externment has been explained. Therefore, relying upon the contents of the affidavit-in-reply, the learned A.P.P. would submit that, since the involvement of the Petitioner is in serious offences, this Court may not interfere in the order of externment and reject the Petition.