PRAFUL BHAUSAHEB YADAV Vs. K. K. PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard finally by consent. Perused the record.

(2.) The case of the Petitioner is that he is cable operator by profession. Police Inspector Mr. Mangalsingh Suryavanshi of Sinnar Police station harbored personal grudge against the Petitioner and initiated false externment proceedings on the basis of false cases. According to the Petitioner on 25-12-2010 he had gone to Vaishnavi Dhaba at Sinnar Goti Highway, to have food. The Petitioner came to know of some incident had happened outside a Company near that Dhaba. One unknown man was lying dead The Petitioner and others went to see what had happened. P.I Mangalsingh was present there who started abusing the Petitioners and others. Petitioner had objected the police inspector Mangalsingh who had abused the people as well as friends of the Petitioner, over their Mother and Sister. Petitioner was then indicted in the false Murder case by said Mangalsingh who was bent upon to take revenge upon the Petitioner. The Petitioner was arrested, remanded for few days and then was released on Bail on 05-02-2011 by the Sessions Court.. On 01-10-2011 showcause notice was slapped upon the Petitioner under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, proposing action under section 56(1) (b) of the said Act to extern the Petitioner from the limits of Districts of Nashik, Ahmadnagar, Dhule, Jalgaon for the period of two years. On 13-04-2012, Sub Divisional Magistrate passed the order of externment, externing the Petitioner from the limits of Nashik for period of two years. The appeal preferred against the externment order was also dismissed by Principal Secretary (Home) State of Maharashtra at Mantralaya, Mumbai. Hence Petition is filed impugning the externment order.

(3.) Learned Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the impugned externment order is illegal, malafide and bad in law. There was no application of mind and the order was issued mechanically in most cavalier manner. Case under section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act was also taken in to consideration for to form subjective satisfaction as to extern the Petitioner. It is submitted that three cases alleged against the Petitioner are pending and the Petitioner is on bail. There is no conviction in the past and no any instance of misuse or abuse of personal liberty. Without resorting to normal remedy available at law i. e. cancellation of bail, the State took drastic action of externment without any valid and sound reason. The order was passed after unexplained and gross delay in respect of the alleged incidents of the year 2010. Learned Advocate prayed for to quash and set aside the impugned order.