GAHININATH JAGANNATH SHIRSATH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition is filed with following prayer :

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is the Chairman of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Pathardi and reputed person in the society. He further submits that, the mandate of provisions of Sec. 56 [1] [a] and [b] of the Maharashtra Police Act [in short 'the said Act'] and also procedure prescribed under Sec. 59 of the said Act has not been followed by respondent no.2 while passing the order thereby externing the petitioner from three Districts. It is submitted that, when the alleged offences stated against the petitioner are registered at Pathardi Police Station in Ahmednagar District, there was no reason for respondent no.2 to extern the petitioner from the boundaries of Beed and Aurangabad Districts. Since the order passed by respondent no.2 is excessive, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) In support of aforesaid contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the various judgments of the Bombay High Court in the case of Nisar @ Nigro Bashir Ahmed Khan Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police & Ors., 2013 [3] Bom.C.R. [Cri.] 566, Umar Mohammed Malbari Vs. K.P. Gaikwad & another, 1988 [2] Bom.C.R. 724, Balu Shivling Dombe Vs. The Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur and another, AIR 1969 Bombay 351, Ganpat @ Ganesh Tanaji Katare Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Police and others, 2006 [1] Mh.L.J. 510, Namdeo Laxman Charde Vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Katol and another, 1996 [1] Mh.L.J. 483, Kashinath @ Kashya Sitaram Keluskar Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Police & Ors., 2000 All MR [Cri.] 801, in the case of Aakash Anil Tambe Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others in Criminal Writ Petition No.500/2014 decided on 08.08.2014 and in the case of Sajid s/o. Mahemood Shaikh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Criminal Writ Petition No. 521/2014 decided on 26.08.2014. He further submits that, one of the crimes mentioned in the proposal submitted by the Police Authority to respondent no.2 was registered in the year 2002, wherein there was fullfledged trial. It is submitted that, though the affidavits of the various persons were filed on record, wherein it is stated that, the petitioner is a reputed person in the society and he is not indulged in the criminal activities as alleged, have not been taken consideration by respondent nos. 2 and It is submitted that, the petitioner's right guaranteed under Art. 19 [1] [d] and 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated. Being the President of APMC, Pathardi, he has to look after the day to day affairs of APMC, Pathardi, therefore his stay at Pathardi is necessary. It is submitted that, since the petitioner's wife is the member of Zilla Parishad, on account of grudge developed by the political leaders from the opposite party, the externment order is passed by the respondent no.2. There is no substance in the allegations made against the petitioner in First Information Reports/Crimes registered against the petitioner. Those offences are registered out of malice.