BHARAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner feels aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Buldana on 21st September, 2012 directing externment of the petitioner for a period of two years from the districts of Buldana, Akola. Washim, Jalna, Parbhani and Aurangabad and dismissal of appeal filed by him before the Government of Maharashtra. The impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is dated 21st September 2012 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal is dated 29th November 2012.

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr. Sadavarte for the petitioner has submitted that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in his order has nowhere stated that he himself was satisfied that order under Section 56 was necessary to be passed. Sub-Divisional Police Officer. It is submitted that the order, therefore, suffers from serious infirmity. In view thereof, it is submitted that the petition should have been allowed.