DINESH Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of counsel for both sides.

(2.) This matter relates to externment order passed against the petitioner.

(3.) According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 Police Inspector, Amalner Police Station submitted proposal (Exhibit A), dated 12.3.2014 to respondent No.3 Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Amalner Division under Section 156(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act (now - The Maharashtra Police act). The respondent N.3 Sub-Divisional Police Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who recorded evidence and submitted the enquiry report. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amalner passed the impugned order of externment. Petitioner claims that, the petitioner runs a pan stall and soda water shop near Dagadi Darwaja vicinity at Amalner and has a family to maintain. There are no complaints from the residents of the locality. It is averred that, respondent No.3 had issued notice under section 56(1) (Exhibit C) to petitioner. The petitioner filed say to the notice (Exhibit D). The petitioner examined two witnesses in support of himself claiming that the offences registered are on false information and he had also been acquitted in some. The respondent No.3, however, submitted report (Exhibit F). The petitioner had filed written arguments (Exhibit G), but in spite of petitioner defending the action, the respondent No.4, without applying mind and considering the evidence and explanation of the petitioner, passed impugned order dated 19.9.2014 (Exhibit H) and the petitioner was externed from Jalgaon, Buldhana, Dhule and Nandurbar districts for one year. The petitioner preferred appeal (Exhibit I) to the State Government on 19.9.2014 and initially stay was granted to the impugned order. However, subsequently, the appellate authority recorded its decision on 27.1.2015 (Exhibit K) and the externment order was modified and externment was limited to Jalgaon district only. According to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 19.9.2014 of externment was without application of mind and bad in law and once the order of externment was found to be excessive, the same should have been quashed, and modification was not permissible under the law in view of decision of this Court (Coram : S.S. Shinde & N.W. Sambre, JJ.), passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.1246/2014.