SHIVAJI GANPATRAO HARALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Parbhani in Petition No. 2014/BPA/EXTERN/07 dtd. 07/10/2014.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined her arguments to only one ground that, without recording subjective satisfaction and reasons in the externment order, the petitioner is externed from four districts i.e. Parbhani, Hingoli, Nanded and Beed. It is submitted that, offences which are registered against the petitioner are in Daithana Police Station located at Parbhani district. It is submitted that, even the alleged prejudicial activities of the petitioner, as stated in the show-cause notice, are in the vicinity of Daithana area of Parbhani district. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the order is excessive, inasmuch as, the petitioner is externed from Hingoli, Nanded and Beed districts.

(3.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor relying upon the show-cause notice and reasons recorded in the order of externment passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Parbhani submits that, the externment order is in conformity with the material placed on record and also within fore corners of the provisions of Sections 56 and 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, therefore, this Court may not interfere in the impugned order.