BALU SHIVLING DOMBE Vs. DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE PANDHARPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Arts, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the legality of an order of externment passed against the petitioner under Section 56 (a) of the Bombay Police Act 1951, by the Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur and confirmed in appeal by the State of Maharashtra.

(2.) The petitioner is a resident of Pandharpur where he owns a cycle shop and considerable immovable properties. He also owns agricultural lands in an adjoining village. He is a married man with wife and children.

(3.) On or about 15th June 1967 the petitioner was served with a notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer Pandharpur, under Section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 calling upon him to show cause why he should not be externed for a period of two years from the districts of Sholapur, Satara and Poona. It was alleged in the notice that because of the petitioner's illegal acts an atmosphere of danger and alarm had been created in Pandharpur city and the surrounding area. Instances of nine illegal acts of the petitioner were given in paragraphs 2 (a) to 2 (I) of the notice. It was also alleged in the notice that witnesses were unwilling to come forward to give evidence against the petitioner because of danger to their life and property. In response of the notice the petitioner appeared before the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, filed a written statement and led evidence of some witnesses. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer then made a report to the Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur Division, recommending the externment of the petitioner. The Divisional Magistrate heard the petitioner again and entertained further evidence given by him. On 17th February 1968 he passed him impugned order externing the petitioner from the revenue limits of the Sholapur district and adjoining districts of Poona and Satara for a period of two years from the date of the receipt of the order. The order was made under Section 56 (a) of the Bombay Police Act. The reasons in support of the order were given in detail in a Note which was made by the Divisional Magistrate on the findings of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer. The reasons given in the Note were referred to and summarised in the impugned order of the Divisional Magistrate.