NAMDEO LAXMAN CHARDE Vs. SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KATOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the validity of order of externment passed by respondent No. 1 in Misc. Cr. Case No. 5/95 and confirmed in appeal.

(2.) THE main ground urged by Shri Daga, learned counsel for the petitioner is that Annexure -A - notice issued under section 59 of Bombay Police Act, 1951 (for short the 'Act') is defective and consequently the proceedings taken on the basis of the said notice as well as the orders are vitiated. According to him, this Annexure -A - notice though mentions certain cases does not mention the locality, area or period during which, the petitioner is alleged to have conducted himself in such a manner as to create danger or alarm to person or property within the meaning of section 56(1)(a) of the Act. The learned counsel placed reliance on the case of Tukaram v. P. P Shrivastav Dy. Commissioner of Police and Another, 1988 MLR 203 (D.B.). In the said decision, it is observed, in the notice therein, the allegations were so vague that it does not give any idea to the petitioner at all about the locality, area or the period during which he is alleged to have conducted himself in such a manner as to create danger or alarm to person or property within the meaning of section 56(1)(a) of the Bombay Police Act. The Court, therefore, proceeded to hold that the final order is vitiated. In the case of Abdul Kadir v. S.D.M., Nasik, 1991 Mh.L.J. 474 = 1991 (2) MLR 571, the Division Bench of this Court held as under : -

(3.) IN Annexure -A, notice issued in this case, a table of cases along with sections under which the said cases were registered are mentioned. Four cases are mentioned therein, the first being of 1989, the second of 1991, the third of 1993 and the fourth being of 1994. The first case under section 66(1) of Bombay Prohibition Act is stated to have ended in conviction, the rest of the cases are stated to be pending. What is significant to be noted is that there is no mention at all as to in which Court the said cases are pending or as to within the jurisdiction of which police station, respective offences took place. Though it may not as such be necessary to refer to the locality specifically, at least data from which the locality could he ascertained should be mentioned and it is necessary to mention the time, the date and the nature of the incident with reasonable clarity, so that it would be possible for the person concerned to adequately meet those charges. It is the fairness and validity of the process by which the decision is reached, rather than the decision itself that counts, unless it is shown that there is total lack of the evidence in support of the conclusion reached or the decision is perverse in the sense that as per the evidence on record, no reasonable person could have reached the said decision.