NITESH JIWAN JANGLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel Mr. A. B. Moon for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. P.V. Bhoyar for the respondents.

(2.) RULE Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) THE petitioner is permanent resident of Wadi, which is within the territorial limits of Nagpur district and comes under the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Police, Nagpur Rural. Learned Counsel Mr. A.B. Moon appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order suffers from three major infirmities i.e. (i) there is inordinate delay in passing the externment order from the date of last offence allegedly committed by the petitioner, (ii) -the allegations made against the petitioner in the show cause notice are vague, and (iii) the Deputy Commissioner of Police i.e. respondent No. 2 has not recorded his subjective satisfaction in the impugned order.