MOHAMMAD ATIQUE MOHAMMAD Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsels for the parties.

(2.) The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders dtd. 18/07/2023 and 07/11/2023. The petitioner was externed by the Respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati. The basis for passing the order is reflected from the order dtd. 18/07/2023 passed by Respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner of Police, Amravati, which states that as many as 7 offences are registered against the petitioner either under the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, or the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offences registered against the petitioner cannot form the basis for externing the petitioner, as the offences are registered either under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, or the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976. The provisions of both these Acts do not fall under Sec. 56(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. Secondly, she submits that only on the basis of in-camera statements, the respondent No.2 could not have arrived at subjective satisfaction. Merely referring to the recording of two statements would not be sufficient, and that there should be proper application of mind to them. However, the order does not reflect that the concerned officer has duly applied his mind. Therefore, the act of the petitioner does not fall under Sec. 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.