RAMLA @ RAMESH DHANSUKHLAL RANA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questions the proceedings culminating in and inclusive of an order externing the petitioner from the Districts of Dhule and Nasik for a period of 2 years.

(2.) Mr. Agarwal appearing in support of the petitioner has raised a number of issues to assail the order. It is not necessary to go into these for the invalidity of the order is apparent from the material variation between the notices given to the petitioner and the order eventually passed against him. The first notice dated 3rd January, 1985 called upon the petitioner to show cause against a proposed externment, the area of operation of his undesirable activities being the township of Taluka Navapur, District Dhule. Then came the second notice dated 15 April, 1985 in which the petitioner was called upon to show cause why an order externing him from the District of Dhule should not be made. However, when it came to passing the order of externment, the petitioner was asked to stay out and refrain from entering or returning to Dhule and Nasik Districts for a period of two years from the date on which he was removed or voluntarily removed himself therefrom. Apart from this variation between the notice and the eventual order which establishes non-application of mind, if not mala fides, there is one more serious infirmity. This relates to 24 or 26 offences under the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. In the first and second notices given to the petitioner the aforementioned cases are said to be against the hirelings or agents of the petitioner. Nevertheless, the order of externment reads as if these cases were against the petitioner himself. Mr. Chopra representing the respondents made a faint attempt to describe the error a "trifle" and "immaterial in-accuracies". The result is a dismal failure, for even in the affidavit in reply filed by the Magistrate who passed the order of externment, there is an assertion that the 24 offences registered during the years 1982, 1983 and 1984 were against the petitioner himself. As said earlier, the notices spoke of these offences being against petitioners hirelings and agents. These are material errors which cannot be overlooked. The new application of mind is writ large on the face of the proceedings culminating in the order impugned in this petition. The result, therefore, is that the order has to be struck down.