SUBHASH GANU BHOIR Vs. K P RAGHUWANSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case has challenged the order of externment issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thane on 3rd of October, 1985 under section 56(a) and (b) of the Bombay Police Act, as well as the order passed in appeal by the State Government on 24th of January, 1986 on various grounds.

(2.) It is contended by Miss Desai, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order is based on old and stale instances on the basis of which no order of externment could have been issued under the Bombay Police Act. She has also contended that the instance in which the petitioner was acquitted or the chapter cases which came to be dropped, could not have been taken into consideration for passing the externment order. Only one case is pending against the petitioner in Thane Court which is also of the year 1984. On the basis after a lapse of about one year no externment proceedings could have been taken against the externee. She also contended that the petitioner is an active social worker of the Janata Party. Since he was to contest the Municipal Corporation Elections at the instance of the persons belonging to the party in power, the present proceedings came to instituted against the petitioner and, therefore, they are not taken in bona fide exercise of powers. It is also contended by the learned Counsel that the show cause notice issued is wholly vague and, is therefore not in conformity with the provisions of the section 59 of the Act. Even the order passed in appeal is not an order in law because it is not a reasoned order and no reasons were given for the modification of the order to a limited extent.

(3.) On the other hand it is contended by Shri Gangakhedkar for the respondents that after following all the procedure prescribed by law, the impugned orders came to be passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the State Government in bona fide exercise of the powers. It is not correct to say that the order is based on state grounds nor could, the show cause notice, be termed as vague. In support of this contention he has placed strong reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 630 (P.S. Rangnekar v. Dy. Commissioner of Police State of Mh.) 1982 Cri.L.J. 2059 and (Banas Domnic Miranda v. A.K. Ankola & others)