VINAYAK DYNANESHWAR MAINKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule; by consent, made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing, the Respondents having waived service.

(2.) The operative part of our judgment was pronounced in open court and reads thus:

(3.) Our reasons follow. First, the facts: The Petitioner was served with two notices, dated 22nd April 2012 and 17th October 2012, asking him to show cause why he should not be externed from the districts of Sangli, Satara, Kolhapur and Solapur for two years. On 5th July 2013, the 2nd Respondent ordered the Petitioner's externment from Sangli and Kolhapur Districts for six months. The Petitioner filed an appeal to the 3rd Respondent, also seeking a stay of the externment order. He also filed an application for re-entry. Given the externment period, the Petitioner's advocate asked for an immediate hearing. He was told that on account of forthcoming citywide festivals, the earliest hearing would not be before 18th September 2013 a date not yet upon us. The Petitioner and his Advocate later learned that the 3rd Respondent scheduled the hearing for 21st September 2013. The Petitioner moved this Court by filing Criminal Writ Petition No.2764 of 2013. On 6th August 2013, we recorded the statement of the Learned APP then appearing that the appeal would be heard on 27th August 2013.