AJIT CHAMPATRAO BHAPKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of externment. The petitioner is a resident of Nagpur. He is a petty transporter. It is alleged that he was involved in commission of many crimes including the crime under Section s 160, 324, 294 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and an offence under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Actrocities) Act (1989 ). It is also alleged that the people in the locality are afraid of the present applicant. They do not come forward to give statement against the present applicant. Applicant is in the habit of giving threats to people and autorikshaw drivers. On these allegations notice was issued to the present petitioner to show cause why he should not be externed. After hearing him an externment order was passed by which he was directed to keep himself out of Nagpur Police Commissionarate as well as Nagpur Rural for a period of 6 months. It is this order which is under challenge.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notice with regard to allegations of giving threats to the person purchasing paper and plastic, was served. THE notice shows that same incident is quoted twice and taken into account while passing order. It is not made clear even in the affidavit of State as to whether any in camera statements of the witnesses were recorded giving details as to when such incident had taken place and why that person could not come forward to lodge the report and what was the nature of the dispute. Since it appears that no such statements are recorded confidentially, it is difficult to accept the contention of the detaining authority that the people do not come forward to give report or make statement. Obviously, the material on which such allegations that witnesses or persons do not come forward is not supported by any evidence nor the copies of such statements if at all recorded were supplied to the present petitioner so that he could afford explanation in that regard. Obviously no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner.