SANDIP Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

(2.) Since the question of law involved in all these petitions is same, all the petitions are being heard and disposed of by the common judgment and order.

(3.) In Criminal Writ Petition No. 1373 of 2016, the petitioner has challenged the propriety, correctness and legality of the order, dated 12.08.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ausa-Renapur and the order dated 23.9.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, thereby partly confirming the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in externment proceedings. In other two petitions also, the dates of impugned orders are identical.