NOORIA Y. HAVELIWALA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the FRRO and Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch II, CID, Mumbai, dated 13 th October, 2011, in restriction order No. 09/DCP/SBII/FSC/2011, in exercise of powers conferred under Para 11(2) of the Foreigners Orders, 1948, against the Petitioner for not to move out of the limits of Gr. Mumbai District, till the completion of the trial pending against her, arising from C.R. No. 22/2010, registered with L. T. Marg Police Station, Mumbai, in connection with motor accident committed by the Petitioner, which resulted in death of PSI Shinde of the Traffic Division and motorcyclist Afzal Akbar and also injured four constables, while driving car, under influence of alcohol as well as drugs.

(2.) The Petitioner was arrested in connection with the said offence but, came to be released on bail, vide order dated 31 st March, 2012, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47 th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, on condition that she shall attend the concerned police station once in a week on every Sunday, between 4.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m., for interrogation, till filing of chargesheet and she should assist the investigating agency. Further, she should not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and should not leave India without taking prior permission of the Court.

(3.) The Competent Authority, in exercise of powers under Foreigners Orders, 1948, however, keeping in mind the background of the case and of the Petitioner, who was holding USA National passport, thought it appropriate to invoke powers under Para 11(2) of the Foreigners Orders, 1948 and restricted the movements of the Petitioner, by directing not to move out of the limits of Mumbai City District, till the completion of the criminal case against her, failing which, she would be liable for the prosecution under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. That order was passed on 12 th April, 2010. The Petitioner challenged the said order, by way of Criminal Writ Petition No. 885 of 2010, before this Court. The principal grievance of the Petitioner was that the said order was passed without issuing any showcause notice to her, even though it curtailed her right of movement, within India. That plea was resisted by the Respondents on the argument that there was no legal provision necessitating issuance of showcause notice before issuing the movement restriction order. The Court allowed the said Writ Petition and was pleased to set aside order dated 12 th April, 2010, while making it clear that it would not prevent the Competent Authority under the Foreigners Act to issue showcause notice to the Petitioner, to pass the order of restriction, if so warranted.