MUKESH RAMCHANDRA RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Counsel for the parties. Perused the record. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Mr. Saste, A. P. P. , waives notice for the respondents. As short question is involved, petition taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent.

(2.) FOR the nature of order that I propose to pass, it is unnecessary to advert to all the events that led to initiation of proceedings under section 56 of the Bombay Police Act against the petitioner. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the first authority. In response to the show cause notice, the petitioner not only offered his explanation but also relied on certain documents and evidence. It is not in dispute that evidence has been taken on records by the first authority. Notwithstanding that position, the first authority proceeded to pass the order of externment against the petitioner and in the order as passed made no reference to the materials produced by the petitioner. This grievance was specifically made before the Appellate Authority as has been recorded by the Appellate Authority in the impugned order in para 4 (1 ).

(3.) IN such a situation, the Appellate Authority ought to have sent back the matter to the first authority for considering the documents referred to and relied upon by the petitioner and deal with those documents one way or the other. That has not been done. Assuming that the Appellate Authority was inclined to consider the relevant materials itself, it was expected that it would advert to each of the documents referred to by the petitioner and then express opinion as to why the same were not germane or ought to be discarded. However, the Appellate authority in the impugned order has only made a general observation that it has perused all the materials on record. That is not enough.