PRASHANT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for both the parties. Heard G.N. Khanzode, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Doiphode, learned Addl. P.P. for respondents 1 to 3. The externment order dated 30th August, 2012 passed by respondent No. 2 directing the petitioner to remove himself from the territorial jurisdiction of Bhandara, Chandrapur and Gadchiroli Districts within two days from receipt of the impugned order, has been challenged in the present Writ Petition. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the externment order is mainly based on the pendency of prohibition cases against the petitioner. The petitioner had eleven prohibition cases on the date of proposal received from the police by respondent No. 2. It is stated in the impugned order that during the period between April, 2011 and September, 2011 when the matter was under consideration of respondent No. 2, the petitioner had committed another five offences under the Prohibition Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the powers under Section 56(1) of the Bombay Police Act cannot be exercised on the ground of pendency of cases under the Prohibition Act. He has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Ashok Kashinath Kale vs. Shri Ravindra Jadhav and another, 1983 2 BCR 763. The relevant portion of the judgment is at paragraph 3 which runs as under:

(3.) Learned Addl. P.P. Mr. Doiphode has not been able to tell the Court as to how the provisions of Section 56 will be attracted in the present case. Apart from this, what is important to be noted is that the proposal was submitted by the police to the respondent No. 2 on 24th February, 2011 and show-cause notice was issued on 16th December, 2011. The impugned order has been passed on 30th August, 2012. It can be seen that the respondent No. 2 did not bother to issue show-cause notice for about ten months. It also can be seen that respondent No. 2 waited for about eight months to pass the impugned order. As such, there is an inordinate delay in taking action on the police report. The delay, by itself, has frustrated the purpose of proposal submitted by the police. The order passed after about 18 months of the proposal cannot be sustained. For the above stated reasons, the Petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order needs to be quashed.